Is the desire for multiple sex partners a true sexual orientation or just a kink?

[LMWM321]

Not too long ago, being gay was viewed as a “kink”, a non-normative sexual fetish. Thankfully, most evolved people now understand that this notion is absolutely ridiculous and hurtful; that for people who are gay, being attracted to the same sex is as healthy, normal, natural and irrepressible as being attracted to the opposite sex is for a heterosexual. And likewise for Bisexuals and Trans people.

So how about desiring multiple sex partners over the course of time - ie, non-monogamy? ..Is it a kink, a fetish? ..Or is it also a normal and healthy sexual orientation?

I don’t mean to equate the extraordinary challenges of being LGBTQ with those of desiring more than one partner. After all, in many places around the world merely admitting you’re gay, bisexual, etc.. can get you arrested, beaten or worse. Whereas saying you’d like to have more than one sex partner may elicit little more than rolled eyes.

Still, there are perfectly reasonable people - men and women - who blow up happy relationships, marriages, careers and more because they can’t resist the desire for sexual variety. And to say these people have poor impulse control isn’t necessarily true. ..Many of them are highly successful and functional people who resist other impulses - eating/ drinking too much, spending money impulsively, acting out angrily, etc. - yet they find the impulse to be with others irrepressible. …Hence the question.

Is it an orientation?

 

[Britva415]

I don't think it's necessarily any of those things, though for any particular person it could be any of a kink, a fetish or their orientation. That doesn't mean that all the other people who like group sex are also kinked, fetishistic or sexually oriented that way.

 

[Carnevil9]

Males are naturally inclined to want to fuck anything with a pussy. It's all about evolution. The species where the guys want to boink any and all women naturally proliferated.

On the other hand, women, who need nine months to gestate an offspring, need to have the attitude that they are in it for the long haul. So evolution ensures that females are naturally monogamous.

It's Mother Nature's cruelest joke on the human race.

 

[policywank]

I think that the example of a homosexual person fits the word "orientation" very well. In overly simplified terms not only are they oriented towards someone of the same sex but away from those of the opposite sex - literally turned towards one and away from the other. So, for a gay man even if there were no other gay men for him to connect with he would have no interest in fucking women.

If I understand correctly you are talking about someone who wants to be non-monogamous (as opposed to someone who wants group sex). I can see the application of the word "orientation" in that he/she is oriented towards sexual non-exclusivity and away from sexual exclusivity. But in the absence of opportunity for sexual variety would he/she have no interest in sexual exclusivity or would they just see it as sub-optimal? I suppose either could be the case as it is such an individual thing. Maybe for some it is an orientation and for others simply a preference?

Personally I question the evolutionary argument. Yes women obviously have a different set of consequences in the pre-birth control world. But the premise that that led to monogamy is based upon the idea that she needs a man to care and provide for her. That is only true because men intentionally limited her ability to do so herself or in cooperation with other women. If women weren't locked into a one-to-one mate ratio, 80% of the guys would never get laid. It was male dominated societies that created the conditions that compelled women towards monogamy. In societies where women's rights and birth control are available women have been proven to be just as inclined towards non-monogamy as men.

I also wonder just how much opportunity has to do with it. How many people who are monogamous would choose to be non-monogamous if they had a realistic opportunity to do so because: a) members of the opposite sex are available to them on a non-monogamous basis; and b) they won't be ostracized or punished for being non-monogamous. As its stands lots of both genders simply don't have viable opportunities to be non-monogamous.

 

[LMWM321]

If I understand correctly you are talking about someone who wants to be non-monogamous (as opposed to someone who wants group sex).

Yes! And to avoid confusion about this I edited my post to make sure this is clear. I'm referring to multiple partners over the course of time, not group-sex.

(I was hoping you'd weigh in - glad you did.)

 

[LMWM321]

So evolution ensures that females are naturally monogamous.

So why then do many women ALSO want sex outside their marriage. Is their interest in this unnatural?

I'm not ascribing this to you necessarily, but believing it's in a man's nature to be non-monogamous but not in a woman's reminds a bit of men who say to their wives, "You need to watch your waistline more than I do b/c sex is more of a visual experience for me than it is for you."

I'll agree that fewer women go through with seeking sex outside their relationship than men, but there are plenty of women who would be non-monogamous if not for fear of violence during the hookup or violence from an angry husband/ boyfriend if found out.

 

[lovedoublepenetration]

Not too long ago, being gay was viewed as a “kink”, a non-normative sexual fetish. Thankfully, most evolved people now understand that this notion is absolutely ridiculous and hurtful; that for people who are gay, being attracted to the same sex is as healthy, normal, natural and irrepressible as being attracted to the opposite sex is for a heterosexual. And likewise for Bisexuals and Trans people.

So how about desiring multiple sex partners over the course of time - ie, non-monogamy? ..Is it a kink, a fetish? ..Or is it also a normal and healthy sexual orientation?

I don’t mean to equate the extraordinary challenges of being LGBTQ with those of desiring more than one partner. After all, in many places around the world merely admitting you’re gay, bisexual, etc.. can get you arrested, beaten or worse. Whereas saying you’d like to have more than one sex partner may elicit little more than rolled eyes.

Still, there are perfectly reasonable people - men and women - who blow up happy relationships, marriages, careers and more because they can’t resist the desire for sexual variety. And to say they are people w/ poor impulse control isn’t quite true. ..Many of these are highly successful and functional people who resist other impulses - eating/ drinking too much, spending money impulsively, acting out angrily, etc. - yet they find the impulse to be with others irrepressible. …Hence the question.

Is it an orientation?

I am so addicted to gangbangs and DPs. Its just my normal thing. Some people prefer just one man. Some prefer multiple. Its just the way they are. For me one cock at a time is too boring. May call it an orientation or a kink. Its up to other. To me a woman have 3 holes, and we need to get it all filled. Also we get multiple orgasms, another proof than woman and made for multiple cocks.

 

[markchamberlain]

Interesting topic. I had a female friend who described herself as polyamorous, and said she felt it was an inherent, immutable orientation for her. She said it was more than being horny, or promiscuous. She actually needed multiple love relationships.

 

[LMWM321]

I can see the application of the word "orientation" in that he/she is oriented towards sexual non-exclusivity and away from sexual exclusivity. But in the absence of opportunity for sexual variety would he/she have no interest in sexual exclusivity or would they just see it as sub-optimal?

A very good point. I would imagine a gay person would have a much harder time finding sexual fulfillment in a heterosexual relationship than a non-monogamist would have sticking w/ one partner.

 

[jedclampet69]

I think the word sexuality fits better

 

[LMWM321]

Interesting topic. I had a female friend who described herself as polyamorous, and said she felt it was an inherent, immutable orientation for her. She said it was more than being horny, or promiscuous. She actually needed multiple love relationships.

Are all of her relationships of equal importance? Ie., Does she have a primary partner while enjoying time w/ others on the side? Are all of her partners aware of her multiple relationships?

 

[LMWM321]

If women weren't locked into a one-to-one mate ratio, 80% of the guys would never get laid.

PW, could you explain what you mean here? ..Your posts are very well written but I'm not following this one point.

 

[spooz3x6]

Interesting topic. I had a female friend who described herself as polyamorous, and said she felt it was an inherent, immutable orientation for her. She said it was more than being horny, or promiscuous. She actually needed multiple love relationships.

auch meine frau hatt mehrere liebesbeziehungen und es hat ihr sehr gut getan

 

[Yarglenurp]

Males are naturally inclined to want to fuck anything with a pussy. It's all about evolution. The species where the guys want to boink any and all women naturally proliferated.

On the other hand, women, who need nine months to gestate an offspring, need to have the attitude that they are in it for the long haul. So evolution ensures that females are naturally monogamous.

It's Mother Nature's cruelest joke on the human race.

I think people forget that, judged by human morality, mother nature is a complete sociopath.

 

[kathyisgr65]

I think that the example of a homosexual person fits the word "orientation" very well. In overly simplified terms not only are they oriented towards someone of the same sex but away from those of the opposite sex - literally turned towards one and away from the other. So, for a gay man even if there were no other gay men for him to connect with he would have no interest in fucking women.

If I understand correctly you are talking about someone who wants to be non-monogamous (as opposed to someone who wants group sex). I can see the application of the word "orientation" in that he/she is oriented towards sexual non-exclusivity and away from sexual exclusivity. But in the absence of opportunity for sexual variety would he/she have no interest in sexual exclusivity or would they just see it as sub-optimal? I suppose either could be the case as it is such an individual thing. Maybe for some it is an orientation and for others simply a preference?

Personally I question the evolutionary argument. Yes women obviously have a different set of consequences in the pre-birth control world. But the premise that that led to monogamy is based upon the idea that she needs a man to care and provide for her. That is only true because men intentionally limited her ability to do so herself or in cooperation with other women. If women weren't locked into a one-to-one mate ratio, 80% of the guys would never get laid. It was male dominated societies that created the conditions that compelled women towards monogamy. In societies where women's rights and birth control are available women have been proven to be just as inclined towards non-monogamy as men.

I also wonder just how much opportunity has to do with it. How many people who are monogamous would choose to be non-monogamous if they had a realistic opportunity to do so because: a) members of the opposite sex are available to them on a non-monogamous basis; and b) they won't be ostracized or punished for being non-monogamous. As its stands lots of both genders simply don't have viable opportunities to be non-monogamous.

Hmmm
Is it a kink...simply because it's not the norm?
I agree about it being an orientation....
Hmmm...

 

[Yarglenurp]

This is more of a question of whether a kink can become an orientation. Sure, why not. I dont know or care what the psychological textbooks way about it, it enough people can agree that a certain kink is a "cannot live without," it is an orientation.

The reason we have homo and hetero orientations is because enough people agree that it's a thing. If literally no one was homosexual except for one dude, we'd just say that this one dude was kinky, the same way we'd say the woman who fell in love with a train station was kinky.

 

[Scotchlander]

I thought about this a long time back after myself and ex wife divorced, I had multiple girlfriends and partners.

It’s maybe just me. But after 2 years I find sex with the same person can become boring. And as much as you both try, everything is predictable with no buzz unless you are both willing to do things differently. I never ever want to cheat. So I usually ended the relationship.

I think humans are built to have sex with multiple partners. Well that’s how I think anyway. I can separate love from sex and if I want to bed a female it’s ’only’ sex and nothing to do with love. If that makes sense

 

[policywank]

PW, could you explain what you mean here? ..Your posts are very well written but I'm not following this one point.

I was indulging a bit of hyperbole and oversimplification here. But the basic point is that in an environment where women are non-monogamist and feel free to seek out sexual variety we are generally going to seek the men that we find most sexually desirable and not really care if those men are also having sex with other women. So, the most appealing guys - the top 20% in my simplistic example - will get most of that action. A compelled one-to-one ratio takes those guys off the market for all but the top 20% of women which gives the other 80% a fighting chance of finding a woman.

One might say that if everyone was non-monogamist and sexually free that there would be plenty of action for everyone. Plus the less appealing women will have no choice but to have sex with the less appealing men.

However, while I do not buy the old tropes about the intrinsic differences when it comes to monogamy we aren't the same either. Women have a different set of risks when it comes to sexual freedom (pregnancy, UTIs, violence among others). The female orgasm is somewhat more complex and elusive so there is a substantially higher prospect of having an unfulfilling sexual encounter. In addition to and/or because of those factors we tend to be more discriminating.

So, let's consider a world where it is normal to pair up but be non-monogamist. Suppose couple A are both 6's on the attractiveness scale and their neighbours couple B are both 8's. Will husband B be open to fucking wife A? Yes he will. She may not be his first choice, but if circumstances are such that she is the most readily available sex partner he will be open to fucking her. Will wife B be open to fucking husband A? Probably not. She is more keenly aware of his lesser status (versus her or her husband) and generally has more to lose from a casual encounter than her husband does. Likewise in a world where men and women don't pair up, many of the same dynamics are at play. The women have a moderately higher likelihood of appealing to men that are as attractive or slightly more so than they are and are moderately more likely to not bother with a man they deem of lesser status or sex appeal.

I am guessing that we see some of this dynamic today with incels. I know it is a lot more complicated than this. But in some cases there will be men who don't offer anything that women find appealing. Even the women who themselves are less appealing are likely to pass on being with them even if that means being alone. When you hear a lot of what those groups have to say it makes a lot of reference to wanting to corral women for their benefit. They need to increase the pool of potentially available women by putting the higher value men off limits and they need to compel those women to enter into monogamous relationships by making it untenable for women to be single. This was the social construct for a lot of history.

The whole women are intrinsically monogamous notion is flawed in my view. Anything that has to be enforced can't realistically be said to be the natural state of being. And that is what society has done through how it treats women. Meanwhile as soon as societies open up on this subject some cohort of women almost immediately exercise their freedom not to be locked in. If monogamy was evolved into our DNA so to speak our behaviour wouldn't change within a generation of constraints being lifted. I have used the analogy before that it is a bit like observing a bird in a cage in a closed room full of cats. If you give the bird the means to open the cage and it chooses not to, you can't logically conclude that it has evolved to prefer living in a cage without regard for the cats waiting for it in a closed space where it can't fly away.

That is not to say that either gender is wired for non-monogamy. I think that there are lots of people who prefer monogamy for a whole bunch of reasons. But I don't think it aligns along gender lines. And I think that while society has loosened up somewhat there are still plenty of artificial pressures pushing us towards monogamy, so almost by definition non-monogamy would be more prevalent in the absence of those pressures.

 

[CuriousinPennsylvania]

I think humans are built to have sex with multiple partners. Well that’s how I think anyway. I can separate love from sex and, if I want to bed a female, it’s ’only’ sex and nothing to do with love.

I can definitely relate to that. I, too, can separate love from sex.

I had a "relationship" with my brother's girlfriend when he away in the service - purely oral sexual. No love involved. I also had a long term sexual "relationship" with an older male friend, with him being the oral bottom and me being the oral top. We started off as good friends and ended that way too. No love involved. I still crave sex with other "partners" - female and male - but nothing emotional/romantic.

"Orientation" is directional, not related to volume. However, as Yarglenurp stated above, a "kink" can become an "orientation" depending on volume. The more people involved in a "kink", the more likely that someone will eventually label it an "orientation". And to me, the "orientation" question centers on whether cravings are for opposite sex, same sex, or both sexes.

If you can separate sex and love, just a "desire for multiple sexual partners", in and of itself, without "qualifiers", is neither a "kink" nor an "orientation". It's just a desire.

 

[CuriousinPennsylvania]

I was indulging a bit of hyperbole and oversimplification here. But the basic point is that in an environment where women are non-monogamist and feel free to seek out sexual variety we are generally going to seek the men that we find most sexually desirable and not really care if those men are also having sex with other women. (Etc., etc, etc.)

I used the (Etc., etc, etc.), not as an attempt to be a critical smart ass, but to not just repeat as I was quoting what policywank has said in the very well thought-out answer. It blew my mind to read something so detailed and logical in a forum such as this.

 

[KinkStevens]

Its a kink. A fantastic kink, but a kink nonetheless

 

[LMWM321]

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies and in particular @policywank who gave a near- PHD level dissertation on the topic. There's not much to disagree with PW, but maybe this?

Will wife B be open to fucking husband A? Probably not. She is more keenly aware of his lesser status (versus her or her husband) and generally has more to lose from a casual encounter than her husband does

You're absolutely right about women having more to lose from a casual encounter. I shudder when I think how easily a casual hook-up could turn violent, or be battered by her douchebag partner when he finds out.

But to the previous point regarding status, couldn't it also be true that women are less selective about status when the goal is just NSA sex and not marriage or a long-term relationship? For example, I know of middle-aged women who go to tennis resorts with girlfriends once a year with the hope of hooking up with one of the many tennis pro's. Their husbands are handsome, successful Wharton MBA types who treat them well, but still the women dig hooking up with a tennis instructor who makes very little money and may not even be particularly handsome.

As it was explained to me, these are very attractive women who enjoyed being fairly promiscuous back in college and now find being with just one person while married challenging. Hooking up with a tennis pro miles and miles from home provides a safe and discreet setting, especially when you are with other girlfriends who are either doing likewise, or have done likewise in the past. And it's not just the tennis pros getting propositioned at the resort, it's bartenders, massage therapists as well..

 

[policywank]

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies and in particular @policywank who gave a near- PHD level dissertation on the topic. There's not much to disagree with PW, but maybe this?

You're absolutely right about women having more to lose from a casual encounter. I shudder when I think how easily a casual hook-up could turn violent, or a woman being battered by her douchebag partner when he finds out.

But to the previous point regarding status, couldn't it also be true that women are less selective about status when the goal is just NSA sex and not marriage or a long-term relationship? For example, I know of middle-aged women who go to tennis resorts with girlfriends once a year with the hope of hooking up with one of the many tennis pro's. Their husbands are handsome, successful Wharton MBA types who treat them well, but still the women dig hooking up with a tennis instructor who makes very little money and may not even be particularly handsome.

As it was explained to me, these very attractive women who enjoyed being fairly promiscuous back in college and now find being with just one person while married challenging. Hooking up with a tennis pro miles and miles from home provides a safe and discreet setting, especially when you are with other girlfriends who are either doing likewise, or have done likewise in the past. And it's not just the tennis pros getting propositioned at the resort, it's bartenders, massage therapists as well..

Actually I think that you are reinforcing my point. Keep in mind that I said that I was using a simplified example to make the point. What constitutes status or sex appeal is obviously more complex than one or two criteria. It isn't just income or what men deem to be the markers of status.

In your example the hunky tennis instructor is a comparatively high status male from a perspective of a woman seeking no strings attached sex. Even if he isn't particularly attractive he has a certain sex appeal. All those dudes with the Wharton MBAs may look down their noses and deem him to be lower status, but that is not how the wives who want to fuck him see him. Meanwhile those wives might look down their nose at the sexy (for whatever reason) female golf instructor as a low status female, but as the target of sexual desire those men see her as a high status female.

Now apply my example. Is the tennis instructor likely to be willing to fuck the cheating wife? Probably. Is the female golf pro likely to be willing to fuck the Wharton MBA husband? Probably not. Will the tennis instructor have extra flexible standards in terms of the wives he fucks if it is all truly NSA and they are generous tippers? Sure why not. Will the female golfer have flexible standards for the middle aged dudes hoping to talk or tip their way into her pants? No, if she wants NSA sex she'll fuck the tennis instructor.

In that environment - wherein the precepts of monogamy are at least temporarily suspended - both the wives and the golf pro end up fucking the tennis instructor. The husbands....sit around talking about their BMWs. All the women get what they want, but it is concentrated on the fortunate few men that fit the criteria they seek.

Of course status is not all black and white. That Wharton MBA presumably has enough going for him to attract a mate. He may be in the top 20% of men in terms of what he offers as a package, but not be in the top 20% in terms of what he offers sexually. And while what he offers financially may be very attractive it is not as compelling as it would have been when women were denied the right to earn money for themselves. Meanwhile if he accepts a non-monogamous marriage his wife will have as many lovers as she pleases and access to more extra-marital sex than he could ever have. He is the one motivated to enforce monogamy. The means that he uses to do so may compel her to be motivated in the same way as my metaphorical bird is motivated to stay in the cage. But he was the starting point. He is the one who intentionally limited her options until monogamy was the best remaining option. And he is the rich man with social status and a key to all the private clubs his wife could want. As you move down the ladder of male status it becomes apparent that they would have diminishing prospects of finding a mate in the absence of enforced monogamy.

 

[LMWM321]

Will the female golfer have flexible standards for the middle aged dudes hoping to talk or tip their way into her pants? No, if she wants NSA sex she'll fuck the tennis instructor.

I get it now, PW thanks.... And I love the above comment in particular!! ...Hilarious and undoubtedly true.

Not to over simplify, but this reminds me a bit of guys who put little effort into their attractiveness (e.g., appearance, hygiene, sense of humor, conversational skills, etc..) who convince their reluctant wives to go to a swingers club thinking it will be a pussy fest only to find there's all kinds of interest in their wife but little or no interest in them.

 

[LMWM321]

So.. what constitutes non-monogamy? ..My wife and I have been having sex (while married and prior) for 35 years at a rate of 2-3 times/ week (even to this day - yes. I'm very lucky). Taking into account a few stress-related dry-spells and breaks after having kids, we've had sex at least 4000 times. If we've had sex with other people 10-12 times over the course of our relationship, would that make us non-monogamous? Before answering, keep in mind our ratio of sex with each other to sex w/ others would therefore be 333:1. In the animal kingdom, a species with such a ratio would almost certainly be deemed solidly monogamous.

If you've been w/ others outside your relationship - what is your ratio?