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

[Yarglenurp]

This thread is making me think a lot of y'all have way better sex lives than me. Well, at least I have Popeyes chicken.

 

[LMWM321]

That's all very interesting PW.

I must be some kinda weird outlier. ..If went to a swingers club and I had to chose b/w being w/ other women or letting my wife be w/ other men, I'd chose the later. It's not that I don't love the idea of being w/ other women, but my libido is and will always remain high, but I think my wife - after decades of being only w/me - needs the occasional excitement of other men to keep hers going. ..And in the end, what's good for her libido is good for me. Strange.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Could be. However, my impression (speculative) was that he was a husband trying to engineer roughly equal outcomes for he and his wife.

I find that to be an interesting aspect of swinging. In some ways it is another version of forced pairing that arguably benefits men more than women. My husband made this point to me years ago when we were at a swingers event. He estimated that there were about 25 couples at the event. And he made the point that for him that pool of 25 prospective female sexual partners was better than he could ever access on his own while the pool of 25 prospective male sexual partners was nothing special for me. He was right and that reflected our experience at the time. Of course that wasn't a commentary on the people involved but on the nature of sexual opportunities available to women.

Presumably either partner might want to have roughly equal outcomes as a way of feeling as though things are in balance. Although I think that men are more likely to want/need it from an ego perspective and substantially more likely to be the partner with fewer opportunities. It is an interesting dynamic to watch people new to that scene. Women often start out somewhat hesitant and may exhibit jealousy as their husband is more anxious to dive right in. But once the women get comfortable it often shifts 180 degrees and the man gets feelings of jealousy as she quickly outpaces him. Then the rules come in - ostensibly to assuage the concerns of both but often to let him feel like he is keeping up.

Of course that is all a gross over generalization. I think most couples adapt just fine. I am just observing some of the dynamics at the margin.

Personally I think that if equality is an objective it should be equality of opportunity. Every couple needs to establish the limitations that work for them and it isn't my place to critique any given arrangement. However, I do feel as though engineering for equal outcomes has a heightened chance of creating problems. There is a good chance that eventually a situation will arise where outcomes are not equal or one partner resents the controls put on them to compel equal outcomes.

I remember one couple that used to attend the same swingers events as my wife and I. The husband was obsessive about portraying himself as sexually equal to or above his wife even if that involved tearing her down a bit with passive aggressive remarks. They had a litany of rules including one that all encounters be full swap and same room. He had a high capacity to convince himself of whatever he wanted to believe and she went along with it to avoid conflict. But eventually the inevitable happened. They paired off with another couple. The other wife had limited interest in him and he was a one pump chump that night (it happens to the best of us). Meanwhile the other husband was absolutely railing his wife and she forgot to pretend she wasn't having a wonderful time. Watching some other dude give his wife a body shuddering orgasm while the other wife had already left the room to find another partner definitely was not the equal outcome he was hoping for. After that he seemed to try to find new ways of controlling the situation and I think she lost interest or he decided he couldn't handle it, because they stopped attending.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Personally I think that if equality is an objective it should be equality of opportunity. Every couple needs to establish the limitations that work for them and it isn't my place to critique any given arrangement. However, I do feel as though engineering for equal outcomes has a heightened chance of creating problems. There is a good chance that eventually a situation will arise where outcomes are not equal or one partner resents the controls put on them to compel equal outcomes.

I remember one couple that used to attend the same swingers events as my wife and I. The husband was obsessive about portraying himself as sexually equal to or above his wife even if that involved tearing her down a bit with passive aggressive remarks. They had a litany of rules including one that all encounters be full swap and same room. He had a high capacity to convince himself of whatever he wanted to believe and she went along with it to avoid conflict. But eventually the inevitable happened. They paired off with another couple. The other wife had limited interest in him and he was a one pump chump that night (it happens to the best of us). Meanwhile the other husband was absolutely railing his wife and she forgot to pretend she wasn't having a wonderful time. Watching some other dude give his wife a body shuddering orgasm while the other wife had already left the room to find another partner definitely was not the equal outcome he was hoping for. After that he seemed to try to find new ways of controlling the situation and I think she lost interest or he decided he couldn't handle it, because they stopped attending

Lol, he should have tried being a cuck fetishist. It'd probably have turned out better for both of them.

Not that it's on-topic, but I hear they serve food at these swinger things. Like, they're often good enough that you'd attend just for the buffet bar. Is that true?

 

[policywank]

That's all very interesting PW.

I must be some kinda weird outlier. ..If went to a swingers club and I had to chose b/w being w/ other women or letting my wife be w/ other men, I'd chose the later. It's not that I don't love the idea of being w/ other women, but my libido is and will always remain high, but I think my wife - after decades of being only w/me - needs the occasional excitement of other men to keep hers going. ..And in the end, what's good for her libido is good for me. Strange.

I don't know if you are an outlier. My reference was more to the newbies or the guys that don't adapt all that well. I think that among the more experienced and stable couples the guys are more like you. They understand that it isn't a competition and embrace the natural flow of things. The parameters or arrangements that those couples adopt are all different, but a consistent factor is that the both partners don't put themselves first. Even if their parameters are more restrictive they make sure that they facilitate their partner's pleasure.

 

[LMWM321]

They understand that it isn't a competition and embrace the natural flow of things.

Agreed... If you really love your partner, you'll want them to wring all the joy they can from their live.

As I see it... If I was one of the best French chefs in NYC and my wife, who truly loves my cooking and praises me endlessly for it, had an opportunity while traveling on business to enjoy a meal from an even more renowned French Chef in Paris, would I say "no, you can't!" simply because I couldn't abide her experiencing an even better meal than the ones I prepare for her? ..Of course not. And nor would any other Husband/ Chef forbid it.

This may seem a gross over-simplification to many, but to me, sex isn't any different.

 

[SlutAddicted]

Lol, he should have tried being a cuck fetishist. It'd probably have turned out better for both of them.

Not that it's on-topic, but I hear they serve food at these swinger things. Like, they're often good enough that you'd attend just for the buffet bar. Is that true?

Most of the events we have attended have been private. Whether in someone's home or a rented venue the events were organized by private individuals as opposed to something like a sex club. And yes I would say that most do make the effort to be excellent hosts including food. I don't think I have ever attended just for the food, lol. But they are typically laid back social gatherings so there are certainly times where I spend most of the time socializing and enjoying the refreshments.

 

[policywank]

Agreed... If you really love your partner, you'll want them to wring all the joy they can from their live.

As I see it... If I was one of the best French chefs in NYC and my wife, who truly loves my cooking and praises me endlessly for it, had an opportunity while traveling on business to enjoy a meal from an even more renowned French Chef in Paris, would I say "no, you can't!" simply because I couldn't abide her experiencing an even better meal than the ones I prepare for her? ..Of course not. And nor would any other Husband/ Chef forbid it.

This may seem a gross over-simplification to many, but to me, sex isn't any different.

I often use food metaphors when discussing interest in sexual variety because the merits of variety in cuisine are so readily apparent. Even if that other chef isn't better there is still every reason for your wife to want to sample his cooking. For that matter it isn't difficult to see why she might enjoy tacos sold out of a food truck if they are good.

I'm sure we have all heard the saying "why have hamburger when I have prime rib at home". It is supposed to be this definitive thing whereby you would never want hamburger. But sometimes I want a hamburger. Even if the prime rib is amazing and it is my favourite food I don't want it for every meal.

 

[lc69hunter]

Could be. However, my impression (speculative) was that he was a husband trying to engineer roughly equal outcomes for he and his wife.

I find that to be an interesting aspect of swinging. In some ways it is another version of forced pairing that arguably benefits men more than women. My husband made this point to me years ago when we were at a swingers event. He estimated that there were about 25 couples at the event. And he made the point that for him that pool of 25 prospective female sexual partners was better than he could ever access on his own while the pool of 25 prospective male sexual partners was nothing special for me. He was right and that reflected our experience at the time. Of course that wasn't a commentary on the people involved but on the nature of sexual opportunities available to women.

Presumably either partner might want to have roughly equal outcomes as a way of feeling as though things are in balance. Although I think that men are more likely to want/need it from an ego perspective and substantially more likely to be the partner with fewer opportunities. It is an interesting dynamic to watch people new to that scene. Women often start out somewhat hesitant and may exhibit jealousy as their husband is more anxious to dive right in. But once the women get comfortable it often shifts 180 degrees and the man gets feelings of jealousy as she quickly outpaces him. Then the rules come in - ostensibly to assuage the concerns of both but often to let him feel like he is keeping up.

Of course that is all a gross over generalization. I think most couples adapt just fine. I am just observing some of the dynamics at the margin.

Anybody with a knowledge of the differences between women and men understand that equal outcomes are not reality. However, sometimes I had to laugh at my wife trying to help engineer that by sending women and friends my way to try and help the balance. Now I appreciated the effort, but in reality it wasn't necessary, as I understand biology, and the fact that equal outcomes are not reality, and that opportunity and libido rule the day.

 

[SouthByWest]

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.

Points all well taken. Doesn't this suggest that the Wharton MBA's better strategy is the time-honored one of providing financial aid, gifts, etc to a much younger woman? Ie, isn't having money the source of his sex appeal? And wouldn't he likely find fucking her much more fun than fucking one of the women in his or his wife's social circle? Just like fucking the tennis instructor is going to be much more fun for his wife?

 

[LMWM321]

I often use food metaphors when discussing interest in sexual variety because the merits of variety in cuisine are so readily apparent. Even if that other chef isn't better there is still every reason for your wife to want to sample his cooking. For that matter it isn't difficult to see why she might enjoy tacos sold out of a food truck if they are good.

Well said. ..And like sex, people really can't control their taste in food.

And I like your food truck analogy. ..Along those lines, I'll point out that my interest in sex w/ another women is NOT predicated on finding her to be more attractive than my wife. Nor does she need to be willing to do things my wife won't. Indeed, I'm quite content if the other women is agreeable to nothing more than just basic missionary or doggie style sex. It's the human variety that draws me, rather than the pursuit of greater beauty or kinkiness.

 

[Yarglenurp]

The food analogy does fall apart in one slight way... there are some people who don't really have any sexual desire. They just don't want to "eat" at all. And sometimes, they start out wanting to eat, and then, after a decade or so, they just stop wanting to eat. Then their partners are like, "Hey, let's try out the Thai place we always used to go to," but there's just no desire for it. But, they're never gonna starve, even if their partner is so, so hungry.

 

[policywank]

The food analogy does fall apart in one slight way... there are some people who don't really have any sexual desire. They just don't want to "eat" at all. And sometimes, they start out wanting to eat, and then, after a decade or so, they just stop wanting to eat. Then their partners are like, "Hey, let's try out the Thai place we always used to go to," but there's just no desire for it. But, they're never gonna starve, even if their partner is so, so hungry.

No metaphor is perfect. Obviously sex isn't a necessity of life in the way that food is. But I think your point sort of reinforces what I am saying. It just so happens that I have a large appetite and appreciation for variety in both sex and food. But some people have very limited appetite or desire for variety. Others choose to limit their intake and variety for any number of reasons. The metaphor is really just geared towards the premise that having one preferred best version of either thing and wanting only that for the rest of our lives is not for everyone.

 

[policywank]

Points all well taken. Doesn't this suggest that the Wharton MBA's better strategy is the time-honored one of providing financial aid, gifts, etc to a much younger woman? Ie, isn't having money the source of his sex appeal? And wouldn't he likely find fucking her much more fun than fucking one of the women in his or his wife's social circle? Just like fucking the tennis instructor is going to be much more fun for his wife?

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.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

I always get a kick out of these types of threads. Some of y’all need to get down to Miami Beach and out to the Hampton’s. Not just middle aged men but OLD men are making the cash rain and there are plenty of takers lined up along the gunwales of those yachts!

Even taken on a lower socioeconomic level, all things being equal, a man can easily level the playing field by throwing some bling around. No argument on a woman’s ability to have different outcomes. Any woman can walk into a bar, or yacht for that matter, and make her way.

 

[LMWM321]

I always get a kick out of these types of threads. Some of y’all need to get down to Miami Beach and out to the Hampton’s. Not just middle aged men but OLD men are making the cash rain and there are plenty of takers lined up along the gunwales of those yachts!

So apart from trading sex for material gain - as you seem to be suggesting - what are your thoughts on the original question: "Is the desire for multiple partners a kink or a sexual orientation?"

 

[Tessinwales]

I don´t care if it is an orientation or even a kink, it´s bloody good fun!

 

[PG564E]

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?

Great question. Individuals can only speak for themselves of course. There own life experiences usually are not grey. They are black and white, 2 choices only. Sexual temptations can lead to a disaster for couples, and that involves kids, finances, everything good in one's life really. The desire for forbidden pleasures can overwhelm either sex if they truly want the experience, not just the powerful fantasy's people have.

So, speaking only for myself, of my own free will and desire, I was over 50 years old when I had been straight all my life. Vivid images of having sex with other men overwhelmed my sexual thoughts. I fought against providing blow jobs to other men (strangers) and swallowing their cum. I did not and could not win that fight. The mind is our greatest sex organ in my opinion. You cannot detach what you really picture for yourself sexually. You can suppress it and not act on your thoughts. Married couples swing. Bisexuals enjoy both sexes. Gays may only want other men. Were human, and don't wear tags stating what we are sexually.

Lust can defeat common sense, rational thinking, and can certainly damage a lot of people's lives. To have the desire to have sex with multiple people I think is the will of the person. It is highly erotic, makes women wet and men hard. I think it is a choice.

 

[Oliver8]

I don´t care if it is an orientation or even a kink, it´s bloody good fun!

At the same time, or one a day for a week or two?

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

So apart from trading sex for material gain - as you seem to be suggesting - what are your thoughts on the original question: "Is the desire for multiple partners a kink or a sexual orientation?"

We’d have to define some terms first probably…

Kinks are a product of leisure. If you have the time, you can have the kink. Take bdsm (and all that encompasses) and say without the leisure time, you probably wouldn’t have the kink. Probably.

Sexual Orientation is usually defined as to the when and where we become attracted to sexual partners (sex & gender), and there is usually a time frame associated with that.

New research has sort of opened that definition and lumps in how early we become sexually mature, how strong attractions are, and how persistent they are, among others.

To answer your question, I’d tend to lean towards desire for multiple partners as a kink, as evidenced by all the bandwidth and free time we use and have on Lit!. I’m no psych, so you can surely argue with that assessment!

Oh, and I stand by my earlier comment…sex is always a trade! Whether it be for material gain or personal!

 

[policywank]

I always get a kick out of these types of threads. Some of y’all need to get down to Miami Beach and out to the Hampton’s. Not just middle aged men but OLD men are making the cash rain and there are plenty of takers lined up along the gunwales of those yachts!

Even taken on a lower socioeconomic level, all things being equal, a man can easily level the playing field by throwing some bling around. No argument on a woman’s ability to have different outcomes. Any woman can walk into a bar, or yacht for that matter, and make her way.

Those willing to spread the cash around will always find that they can buy their way up with a certain group of women. But that will usually be a more restricted pool of women than the pool of men willing to have a causal fling for no money. And the need for the old guys to throw around the money illustrates the point that that high status is limited to those who come by it naturally or who can buy it.

 

[LMWM321]

While buying plane tickets for an upcoming vacation I saw the following connection to the question of whether women are less interested in non-monogamy because of the stubborn, self-preserving preferences imposed by natural selection (ie., Evolution).

Humans are physically fragile and we lack wings. ..Hence, we evolved having a very healthy, life-preserving fear of heights. Nontheless, in 1955, a mere 32 years after the Wright Bros' first successful powered flight, more Americans traveled by air for vacations than by rail. ..Just 32 years!!!

Today, nearly everyone of us is quite comfortable sitting in an Airliner as it soars 35,000 ft. above the ground. Heck, even though evolution taught us to never sleep in a tree for fear of falling out, some of us can even get comfortable enough to sleep as they fly (lucky fuckers).

Perhaps this is how it is for women and multiple sex partners... If you make sex outside of a primary relationship as consequence-free for them as it is for men - i.e., safe from financial destitution, safe from stigma and safe from physical assault - they will be as horny for additional partners as men, evolution notwithstanding..

 

[policywank]

While buying plane tickets for an upcoming vacation I saw the following connection to the question of whether women are less interested in non-monogamy because of the stubborn, self-preserving preferences imposed by natural selection (ie., Evolution).

Humans are physically fragile and we lack wings. ..Hence, we evolved having a very healthy, life-preserving fear of heights. Nontheless, in 1955, a mere 32 years after the Wright Bros flew the first the first powered aircraft, more Americans traveled by air for vacations than by rail. ..Just 32 years!!!

Today, nearly everyone of us is quite comfortable sitting in an Airliner as it soars 35,000 ft. above the ground. Heck, even though evolution taught us to never sleep in a tree for fear of falling out, some of us can even get comfortable enough to sleep as they fly (lucky fuckers).

Perhaps this is how it is for women and multiple sex partners... If you make sex outside of a primary relationship as consequence-free for them as it is for men - i.e., safe from financial destitution, safe from stigma and safe from physical assault - they will be as horny for additional partners as men, evolution notwithstanding..

I think that is correct.

Except I would probably remove the "evolution notwithstanding" because I think that the evolutionary argument was flawed in the first place. Evolution is about the fundamental change in the characteristics of a species over many generations in response to their environment as proven by actual scientific evidence of that change. The supposed monogamous nature of women doesn't fit any of that criteria to my knowledge. All that happened was some guys who wanted to justify the double standard observed women in a society where we were compelled to be monogamous and made up a narrative about how that was part of our fundamental nature. There is no evidence of our nature having changed over time and no evidence of our nature being innate in the absence of enforcement. In fact, almost immediately upon removing the forces that compelled us to be monogamous, women's behaviour deviated from that which was assumed to be innate and became more like male behaviour. If we were innately monogamous more so than men there would have been no change in behaviour when the forces that compel us to be monogamous were removed or the change would have moved at an evolutionary pace over many generations.

 

[LMWM321]

All that happened was some guys who wanted to justify the double standard...made up a narrative about how that was part of our fundamental nature

Again.. well said, PW. And I agree on your correcting me on the "evolution notwithstanding" comment.

I can point to another double-standard for which men have made up a justifying narrative; it's not quite as insidious but but bad all the same. ...A husband telling his wife, "Honey, you need to watch your waistline [or appearance, more generally} more than I because men are more visual when it comes to sex..."

 

[policywank]

Again.. well said, PW. And I agree on your correcting me on the "evolution notwithstanding" comment.

I can't point to another double-standard for which men have made up a justifying narrative; it's not quite as insidious but but bad all the same. ...A husband telling his wife, "Honey, you need to watch your waistline [or appearance, more generally} more than I because men are more visual when it comes to sex..."

Yes, that is a bad one. I dislike the generalizations but even to the extent that women are less visual, that doesn't mean we aren't visual at all. It's kind of like saying your palate is less sophisticated than mine so you shouldn't care if I feed you overcooked crap.