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

[MoonLites]

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?

I would almost call it natural human nature. We don't ask people to pick one meal and live on it solely for the rest of their lives. We don't ask them to pick one house, car, clothes, friends, or really anything. Why do we get surprised when people wonder what sex with other people is like or engage in it?

 

[SouthByWest]

Perhaps that is his best strategy. But money and gifts don't really enhance his sex appeal. Perhaps his status has some appeal to some women. But no matter how much money they sprinkle around the middle aged men are not going to have nearly as much success with the golf pro as their wives will have with the tennis instructor.

You can look at that man's material wealth in one of two ways. Perhaps it is the means by which he buys his way into being a high status male, which doesn't negate the premise that most men will not be able to do that. Or it is the means by which he creates the circumstances to compel a woman for whom the wealth disparity is most compelling towards him. Either way this reinforces my point.

I guess I view "sex appeal" as whatever it is that, at least in part, makes someone want you. And generosity, little gifts, making someone feel special, in various forms and at various levels, can help with that. It certainly doesn't need to be at the yacht level. Different girls (and guys) can be affected by different kinds and levels of generosity.

I am a little curious. Suppose your husband came to you and said that while he was glad you appeared to be highly satisfied with your arrangement, he was not quite getting enough other women to satisfy him, for all the reasons you have explained, and that a monthly spending allowance would give him a better shot at a somewhat more level playing field. How would you feel about his proposal?

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

I would almost call it natural human nature. We don't ask people to pick one meal and live on it solely for the rest of their lives. We don't ask them to pick one house, car, clothes, friends, or really anything. Why do we get surprised when people wonder what sex with other people is like or engage in it?

There is a lot of evidence to support this point of view. Although, it’s much more complex than just the sexual portion.

In Mesopotamia’s texts have shown that there were relationships where there was some elements of more human connection other than the legal marriage ties. These documents reveal men and women engaging in meaningful relationships outside of formal marriages. They depict deep emotional bonds and mutual respect relationships. A lot of these were of a companionship and emotional type connections and accepted within the community. Side by side with a traditional marriage. Definitely a complex social construct but it illustrates how this isn’t a new idea and one that was part of a cultures fabric.

Native American cultures had relationships involving multiple partners built on mutual respect and emotional bonds. In parts of Africa and Polynesia, these same traits were observed in indigenous tribes. Probably a lot of this stems from communal living and the concepts of “owning” weren’t in the fabric of their societies, but the song remains the same. The focus was on surviving, keeping the peace, and probably some understanding of spreading genes.

In modern Western cultures, I’d like to throw out there that (this circles back to our discussion on “high value men/women”) the socioeconomic stratum dictates the acceptance of multiple partners. In Victorian England for instance, it was very much accepted for the Downton Abbey set to have multiple partners. So much so that a good hostess would position guests in rooms that would accommodate late night rendezvous of said suitors…you know…so as to keep up appearances even though they all knew it was going on! Winston Churchill’s mother was one of these notorious room hoppers. Of course this behavior was frowned upon for the Cockney class. As an aside and probably a discussion for another day, the upper crust had access to rudimentary forms of birth control. Prescribed by doctors and quite expensive, so out of reach of the lower classes. I know that’s a topic for another day, but does help us understand our modern views on the topic.

Great discussion y’all!

 

[gtnlynn]

My wife enjoyed having multiple sex partners in college, one at a time, over a three year period before we became engaged. A few years later, she was getting offers from a number of men, and I could tell that she missed having other partners. I gave her permission to have sex with others under certain conditions, and she enjoyed the freedom for a few years. Then she decided to stop completely. Her hunger was satisfied. It was not a permanent orientation for her.

 

[policywank]

I guess I view "sex appeal" as whatever it is that, at least in part, makes someone want you. And generosity, little gifts, making someone feel special, in various forms and at various levels, can help with that. It certainly doesn't need to be at the yacht level. Different girls (and guys) can be affected by different kinds and levels of generosity.

I am a little curious. Suppose your husband came to you and said that while he was glad you appeared to be highly satisfied with your arrangement, he was not quite getting enough other women to satisfy him, for all the reasons you have explained, and that a monthly spending allowance would give him a better shot at a somewhat more level playing field. How would you feel about his proposal?

I understand. The primary point of my comments was not to define what constitutes sex appeal, but rather to make the point that those who have less of it have a vested interest in compelling women to be monogamous.

In my view money is one of those things that we sort of like the idea of saying it doesn't matter but it does. Financial stability and success are factors that we desire in their own right and which we regard as markers of a character that we find appealing. Likewise generosity is an appealing characteristics that also conveys benefit to the other party. Meanwhile it isn't difficult to imagine the more extreme scenario where a woman finds a guy not the least bit attractive but is after his money. Where does one draw the line? I don't know but I do see the point that it can be part of what makes someone attractive.

If my husband wanted to purchase gifts or convey some financial benefit to the women he seeks to date I would be fine with that. In fact, if he just wanted to hire a prostitute outright that would be fine too. In many ways it is no different to me than him wanting to pay to join a golf club. As long as it is responsible in the context of our finances I'd say whatever works for him. I'd want to make sure he isn't being taken advantage of, but I trust him to not be naive. The one caveat I would put out there is that I wouldn't want his objective to be to "level the playing field", but to enhance his own experience in a way that works for him. If we end up getting equal outcomes that is fine, but I don't want achieving that unlikely result to be what governs the amount he spends or how he spends it.

 

[SouthByWest]

Yes, that's what I meant by leveling the playing field: greater equality of opportunity, rather than equality of outcome.

 

[LMWM321]

In fact, if he just wanted to hire a prostitute outright that would be fine too. In many ways it is no different to me than him wanting to pay to join a golf club.

Agree w/ whole post PW.

It's totally rediculous that sex work isn't legal in the US. People can sell sell their bodies professionally playing sports that cause brain-damage - e.g., MMA, Football, Boxing, etc.. - but not for pleasure which physically hurts no one (if protection is used). Utterly stupid. To think of the number of marriages that might be saved if it was legitimized and embraced.

 

[Britva415]

To think of the number of marriages that might be saved if it was legitimized and embraced

I don't know what that number is, but I bet it's not as big as the number of marriages where legality wouldn't make any difference.

 

[LMWM321]

I don't know what that number is, but I bet it's not as big as the number of marriages where legality wouldn't make any difference.

Well, yes.... But if it would reduce the divorce rate by even 15-20%, that's significant.

Of course, it's also predictable it will hasten the demise of other marriages - not unlike the way the emergence of gambling apps, etc have added to the gambling addiction problem.. ..Still, I think it would be a net-positive by changing what couples allow w/ respect to sex outside the marriage - assuming, of course, sex-workers are licensed and bonded to not have relationships with their patrons "outside" of work. If they DO they are subject to losing their license and can be sued - not unlike a doctor or psychologist.

Who knows, perhaps attitudes about sex outside of marriage could change considerably if sex work is legalized, not unlike the decriminalization of Marijuana. ..I know at least a dozen people who would NEVER touch pot when it was illegal who are now eager partakers of vape-pens, gummies, etc..

 

[policywank]

Well, yes.... But if it would reduce the divorce rate by even 15-20%, that's significant.

Of course, it's also predictable it will hasten the demise of other marriages - not unlike the way the emergence of gambling apps, etc have added to the gambling addiction problem.. ..Still, I think it would be a net-positive by changing what couples allow w/ respect to sex outside the marriage - assuming, of course, sex-workers are licensed and bonded to not have relationships with their patrons "outside" of work. If they DO they are subject to losing their license and can be sued - not unlike a doctor or psychologist.

Who knows, perhaps attitudes about sex outside of marriage could change considerably if sex work is legalized, not unlike the decriminalization of Marijuana. ..I know at least a dozen people who would NEVER touch pot when it was illegal who are now eager partakers of vape-pens, gummies, etc..

I suppose that we are off topic here, but I have always been interested in the dynamics of what we choose to regulate. In principle I think that government should regulate our ability to harm others, impinge on the rights and freedoms of others and major societal ills, but otherwise leave us alone. The mere fact that something might be bad for us is not an adequate reason to restrict us from making that decision for ourselves.

Of course those lines can be blurry. It makes no sense to allow the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, but not marijuana. But I can see the argument for not extending that rationale to heroin because of its relative personal and societal harm and how its addictive properties undermine the exercise of personal choice.

However, when it comes to sex there has never really been a valid reason in my mind to restrict activity among consenting adults. Restrictions have always been about trying to impose a universal set of values on society. In some ways they are not unlike the now (mostly) repealed laws against sodomy, which always begged the question why the fuck do you care if someone else wants to engage in this activity? It is just none of anybody else's business.

It is a little like trying to impose prohibition because you don't want your spouse to drink. Take that up with your spouse. That is no reason to restrict everyone else's freedom of choice. And ultimately attempts to control it might cause more harm than good. Much like prohibition, outlawing prostitution doesn't make it go away. It just drives it into the shadows where criminals control the trade.

 

[lc69hunter]

I suppose that we are off topic here, but I have always been interested in the dynamics of what we choose to regulate. In principle I think that government should regulate our ability to harm others, impinge on the rights and freedoms of others and major societal ills, but otherwise leave us alone. The mere fact that something might be bad for us is not an adequate reason to restrict us from making that decision for ourselves.

Of course those lines can be blurry. It makes no sense to allow the sale of cigarettes and alcohol, but not marijuana. But I can see the argument for not extending that rationale to heroin because of its relative personal and societal harm and how its addictive properties undermine the exercise of personal choice.

However, when it comes to sex there has never really been a valid reason in my mind to restrict activity among consenting adults. Restrictions have always been about trying to impose a universal set of values on society. In some ways they are not unlike the now (mostly) repealed laws against sodomy, which always begged the question why the fuck do you care if someone else wants to engage in this activity? It is just none of anybody else's business.

It is a little like trying to impose prohibition because you don't want your spouse to drink. Take that up with your spouse. That is no reason to restrict everyone else's freedom of choice. And ultimately attempts to control it might cause more harm than good. Much like prohibition, outlawing prostitution doesn't make it go away. It just drives it into the shadows where criminals control the trade.

Again, right on point

 

[Beth_Anne90]

Although I didn't read all of the comments here I found it to be quite interesting. As to having multiple sex partners being a kink or something to do with sexual orientation, I think for me it was just the fact that I was divorced, horny, and needed sexual companionship which lasted for a couple years.

 

[magic_rat]

It's pointless trying to put labels on things. My partner and I practice ENM (ethical non monogamy) because we met through swinging, and don't want to stop fucking around even though we are committed to each other. Sex is recreational fun.

 

[Artfan2]

Although I didn't read all of the comments here I found it to be quite interesting. As to having multiple sex partners being a kink or something to do with sexual orientation, I think for me it was just the fact that I was divorced, horny, and needed sexual companionship which lasted for a couple years.

Did you want multiple partners one at a time, or multiple partners at once?

 

[magic_rat]

However, when it comes to sex there has never really been a valid reason in my mind to restrict activity among consenting adults. Restrictions have always been about trying to impose a universal set of values on society.

It's a church thing. They just like to suck all the joy out of everything.

 

[Sweetdreams71]

Interesting thread to read....

 

[SubmissiveMom]

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.

With me, was just a fantasy to masturbate to at first but became a reality when me and my ex started advertising and then got involved in the 'swinging' scene and parties etc x x x x

 

[Beth_Anne90]

Did you want multiple partners one at a time, or multiple partners at once?

Multiple partners at one time gets way too busy and confusing!

 

[ZfrkS62]

For me, it's a kind of FOMO.

I've only had 3 serious girlfriends in my life. The third one is my wife. She was my second partner. I had a 3rd during a period where we were broken up due to the strains of a LDR.

Sex has always interested and fascinated me, but i wasn't raised in a particularly sex positive household, which is strange because it wasn't from a religious background either. There were multiple times that i can remember in my formative years that i was made to feel like i shouldn't be interested it curious about it, which only made me more interested in it. I can't imagine the avoiding is have gotten if i had ever been caught jerking off. By the time i discovered how hypocritical my parents were being, it was too late. Sex wasn't something you were supposed to experiment with, and you only dated to find your spouse. Not that it mattered, my social skills with women were terrible, and i wasn't the one that got approached. I went to tech school, not college, so i missed out on all of that too.

Flash forward to present day, and I'm finally relaxing my worries about what being curious about what turns me on means and i want to try new things in bed, but my partner has zero interest. Which means if I'm going to experience anything beyond the basics, I'm going to need different partners that are willing to show me what I missed out on.