Talk:Swinging (sexual practice)/Archive 1

Types of swingers
7/27/6 - Definition of swinging from an author http://www.swingersbook.com/whatisswinging1.html should be considered for reference


 * I'm not going to change any content in the article, as this is already a difficult topic for collaboration. However, I will point out that the reference above may not meet Wikipedia standards for verifiablity. Below are excerpts of the relevant policies on verifiability. Kelly 21:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From WP:VERIFY
 * "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight."
 * " "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so."
 * From Reliable_sources
 * "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."
 * "Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym. However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking."

swingers wrote, ok i rewrote the types of swingers section and made it more concise and more factual as suggested by inkwell for consideration as follows:

SOFT SWING: Soft swingers fall into three different categories:

1. SAME ROOM – This is when a committed couple is in the same room with another couple, having sex with their own spouse while another couple either does the same or watches. 2. GIRL-GIRL ONLY – Two or more women play with each other while their husbands either watch from the sidelines or participate only with their own wives.

3. SOFT SWING – Women and men will switch sexual partners but there is no actual sexual intercourse.

FULL SWAP: Full swap has no real sub-groups, it is wife swapping with sexual intercourse this can also include single swingers, male or female being invited by a couple to join them and / or group sex with multiple partners.


 * divides full-swap into two sub-groups: "Full-swap couple, same room only" and "Full-swap couple, completely open". (TeamSoBe 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC))

inkwell i like the edits its more concise and to the point thank you - swingers, 2.16.6 7.24pm est


 * I started editing this, but I'm not sure I agree with all of it. I have only heard "same room" applied when referring to the opposite of "different room" (when couples swing and have sex without their partner being present).  I think what is described as "same room" above is voyeurism/exhibitionism.  Same and different room can apply to both soft and full swap (though full swap in different rooms is rare, I find).  Girl-Girl Only *could* be soft swap, but it could also be a FFM threesome (a very common type of swinging - not all swinging couples want to find other couples.  The references to spouses/wives/husbands needs to be edited out as well - you don't need to be married to be a swinger.  As does the word "committed" - not all swingers are in "committed" relationships.Inkwell 08:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That hasn't been my experience, Inkwell. In fact, I have usually heard "same room" as, essentially, a synonym for "soft swing". I have only heard "same room" as a term that, essentially means "not full swap".  I poked around on google, and found sites that back this up -- sort of.  E.g. "SOFT SWINGING  The term used to describe same-room sex, watching/being watched, or any sexual encounter up to, but not including intercourse, with someone other than your spouse."  On the other hand, I also found stuff that backs you up, e.g., "Same room  is a situation where all partners involved are interacting in the same room.  Separate room is where partners interact separately and go to different rooms or areas."  And so, perhaps, we have two meanings for this term.  But, I must say, in my experience, I have never heard it as opposed to "different room", I've only heard it as a close synonym to "soft swing."  FWIW -- David carly 17:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that "same room" means actual swinging, not (as user swingers wrote) simply watching or being watched. I don't think that the definition that you give above does backs up the view that "same room" is essentially the same as "soft swap".  It says "The term used to describe same-room sex ... but not including intercourse."  That implies that same-room sex could include intercourse, which sounds logial to me!


 * I think possibly the reason you haven't heard "different room" or "seperate room" is because not many people really want to do it. Most swingers aren't really into "wife swapping".


 * But certainly amongst swingers I know (and me) "same room" refers to _where_ you swing, not how you do it. Inkwell 18:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I reformatted the opening of the article so it includes some clearer definitions. I changed very little of the text.  I mentioned "different room" swinging without making it sound like a well known definition.  Let me know what you think.  Inkwell 18:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

swingers wrote, the types of swingers in this topic are not explored enough consider :

As you'll quickly notice, there are many levels of swinger involvement. Whatever the craving, however, swingers almost always fall into a two broad groups, with some sub-groups within. SOFT SWING : This is usually a couple's first few baby steps toward the lifestyle. Soft swingers themselves fall into three different categories themselves, and this is why communication is so important when meeting with a new couple for the first time. The three sub-groups play differently and when combined make up about 75% of the lifestyle's patrons: 1. SAME ROOM – This is when a committed couple is in the same room with another couple, having sex with their own spouse while another couple either does the same or watches. Same room soft swingers get aroused by the mere presence of another set of eyes… watching and being watched heightens their erotic pleasure which leads to much more explosive orgasms. They will, however, for the most part only play sexually with their own spouse. Even hardcore swingers (detailed below) usually start out in some sort of mild same-room scenario, and might spend years in this category before exploring further. 2. GIRL-GIRL ONLY – Two or more women play with each other in hot girl-girl action (just like the movies, and exactly like your fantasies), and their husbands either watch from the sidelines or participate only with their own wives. Most suited for this activity are bisexual women/bi-curious women and voyeuristic men. 3. SOFTCORE WIFE-SWAPPING – Women and men will switch sexual partners and play the day away, but there is no sexual intercourse. Activities include kissing, flirting, caressing, and oral sex. With this, there is still most often plenty of girl-girl action still going on, so the combinations are quite fun ?. Couples into softcore wife-swapping usually like the variety of new sexual partners, but prefer to save the intimacy of sex for each other. FULL SWAP: Full swap has no real sub-groups and is quite straight forward ~ It is wife-swapping for sex, plain and simple. It is completely hardcore, the ultimate in sexual adventure, and not for the possessive or jealous. This can also include women who like to have two or more men servicing them at once in a gang-bang and can certainly include lots of girl-girl action. Full swap couples make up about 25% of all swingers, and if you ever find yourself in a full-swap encounter, leave your inhibitions at the door, strap-in, and get ready for a ride that you will never forget. While we all know that there's nothing like a new sex partner, the trade off is that another guy gets to fuck your wife. So do a head-check and find out if watching your wife screaming in ecstasy while she takes another man's cock to the hilt is on your list of fantasies. In personal ads you'll find a great many people that say, “we're soft swing but will full-swap with the right couple”. This is totally normal, because swingers know that the night and its rules can change when the vibe changes… leaving your options open doesn't mean you can't change them back later, so remember to stay open-minded and enjoy yourself.


 * The above is good, and something like it ought to be incorporated into the main article. I say "something like it" because this does sound like it's been mostly cut-n-pasted from a swingers' club web site.  (phrases like: "while we all know that...", and "remember to..." make it kinda obvious).  David carly 22:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree - some of this is good information, but the tone isn't quite right and not objective enough. Phrases like "get ready for a ride that you will never forget" sound like persuasive rather than information.  It needs to be considerably shortened and rewritten, but then it could be a useful addition.  Inkwell 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ==Hold on a minute...==
 * The above was lifted from a swinging website. No wonder it sounded like pro-swinging propaganda!

yes it was "lifted" from my website, as a suggestion as to new additions pro-swinging propaganda! - not really it simply explains swinging and the types of swingers, isn’t that what this topic should encompass? so if i write about Jesus its pro Jesus propaganda just for mentioning his name in his own topic... Jehovah... stone him i say, look nobody gets stoned until i say so even if they did say the word Jehovah...Monte Python... now lighten up and focus on the topic at hand and giving the general public an educated description of it... this will get deleted anyway by the "SUPREME INTELLECT SQUAD" or the peoples front of Judia one of the two so really what’s the point.. ROME is your fffffriend... they were still dictators of foreign lands, question not what other people contribute but rather your self appointed dictatorship.


 * Anyway, continuing on: yes, it needs to be re-written a bit. Where do you think it should go in the article (and how much of it is duplicative of the current opening paragraph)?  Also: I think "soft-swing" is a better term than "soft core wife-swapping".  David carly 01:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

it needs to be rewritten totally it was written (the orignal above copy)to encourage sign ups and not for the general public however the swing status theme is important as it synonymous with the swinging lifestyle and its terms so it should go before the sub groups as a swingers "swing status" is of most importance, I think it needs to be inherently clear (swingers)
 * (ignoring the irrelevant Monty Python/Jesus rant above). Yes, it is progaganda because, like you say, it was written to persuade people to join a swinging site. It deals with swinging subjectively.  Nothing wrong with that, but the style isn't appropriate on Wikipedia.  Something like it (though much, much shorter) could be added.  I'm nearly always in favour of using less paragraphing to explain and more headings.Inkwell 07:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gay / Lesbian / Bi Issues
Listen, you cant exclude gay/bisexual people. It may be true or it may not be true that most clubs exclude/discourage gay activity but at best you can only say "There are some clubs that discourage gay activity." Note 'some', you cant say 'all' or 'many' or 'most' because different people have different views.-Wolfgang L. Mclain


 * One problem with the whole discussion on sexual orientation issues (and with the Swinging article in general) is the absence of verifiable sources for the views expressed. Personal experiences and swinger Web sites are not the kind of materials on which encyclopedias should be based. If people confined the discussion to information in verifiable sources (see also reliable sources), as defined by Wikipedia guidelines, it would be much easier to resolve these kinds of conflicts. Kelly 07:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Cymro61 wrote, "In the first place setting the swinging scene in the context of gay/lesbian and transgendered people is inappropriate, given these are other sexualities."

What a ridiculous lie. Either that, or you're just plain ignorant with regard to swinging. Gays, lesbians, and transgendered people *DO* swing, just as bisexual people do. Swinging is NOT limited to couples comprised of a heterosexual male and bisexual female. It includes all kinds of couples and people - hetero, gay, lesbian, bi, transgendered (I've seen polyamorous groups involved some as well). If you aren't even aware of that, you really have no business of editing this article at all. Swinging isn't limited to what YOU want to define it as.--A

The reason I reverted....From my own considerable experience, the statement that female bisexuality is common than male bisexual within the activity of swinging is absolutely true. This is backed up by the rules of many clubs, and by anecdotes of others involved. Whether or not men involved in swinging have interest in bisexuality might be another story. But in reality, male bisexuality is unwelcome in many swinging situations. Of course, there are exceptions. ike9898 13:39, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

That differs from club to club and from location to location. Maybe those are the common rules in your area. They are not the common rules in my area. There are a lot of clubs that allow or even encourage male bisexual activity. Besides, there are a lot of gay and lesbian swingers-clubs also, where only homosexuality is allowed. Actually I think that pure gay swingersclubs are even more common than straight-male+bi-female clubs... Sexual preference doesn't have anything to do with swinging. I think that sentence I removed is just very unnecessary. Even if it's true (despite my own experience) I just don't think it belongs here. It's offtopic, disrespectful and there are way too many exceptions.

There is a documentary on swinging called The Lifestyle. http://imdb.com/title/tt0196699/ This is the Internet Movie Database link. Are there any objections to this movie being added to the list?

Two things:

First: I am editing the text to make it clear that male bisexuality is rare and unwelcome in virtually all swinging clubs. This is a fact and disguising this salient point would be to deliberately mislead readers. Gay and lesbian swinging clubs are not swingers clubs, they are gay and lesbian clubs. I do not believe there are many swingers clubs - properly defined - that tolerate or encourage male bisexuality and I would want to know which of the 400 NASCA members had this policy before believing the opposite. There is nothing disrespectful about a fact nor is there anything disrespectful about people choosing to define their sexuality in ways that exclude being present during male gay sex. After all, not many lesbian and gay clubs welcome or encourage heterosexual sex on the premises, nor should they have to.

Second: A large amount of copy has been inserted on the topic of non-condom use and swingers with venereal diseases. This appears to be an attempt to associate swinging with unsafe sex, a connection which has never been borne out scientifically in any country that has swingers clubs. I am going to edit this out. I would want to know which swingers clubs do not have rules about condom use before accepting it. Cymro61

I've attempted to split the text into sections, have added text to the subgroups: bisexuality and singles, have also added text to the organisation section ''To many couples, the lifestyle and the clubs can be at least as much a social venue as a sexual one. Many off-premise clubs follow a bar or nightclub format, sometimes renting an entire existing bar for scheduled events. This often relegates these activities to suburbia, where bars in large industrial parks which attract a mainstream clientele during weekdays would otherwise sit empty or closed on weekends when offices shut down.''

I haven't removed text although some appears in different sequence. Perhaps someone would care to check the new text for NPOV? --66.102.74.5 05:07, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whoever obsesses about male homosexuality, its supposed acceptance in the swinging context and the 'homophobia' of not wanting to be present when men have gay sex is going to find that I have a very strong muscle in my delete finger. We swingers will define our community as we wish, thank you, and not have it defined for us by overbearing and aggressive people of other sexualities whose committment to propaganda far outstrips their committment to the truth. Cymro61


 * Just to back you up.... This is not a question of the article being pro- or anti- gay.  The article just needs to be factual.  In my experience, it is a fact that at many swing clubs, male homosexual activity is not welcomed.  Maybe that will change, who knows.  But Wikipedia should just be about objective facts. ike9898 22:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Another data point: this issue comes up rarely in many areas, for the simple reason that most clubs allows only couples or single women. Furthermore, even among swingers, there simply just are more bisexual women than men.  OTOH, the one club that I've been to that does allow a limited number of single men had male-bisexual activity going on.  I didn't see any intolerance of it. David carly 17:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've flagged the "subgroups" section as disputed; I do not think that deleting whatever facts happen to not support one's pet cause(s) is leading us any closer to a neutral or accurate article. If there are two sides to an issue, fine, present both sides, but an article with everything one person or group doesn't like being repeatedly removed is neither complete nor objective. --carlb 19:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disputed it certainly is. However, it is not facts that are being deleted and it is the (anonymous) person who insists on inserting and reinserting factually inaccurate copy littered with subjective judgements who is pursuing a pet cause.

Let us look in detail at the disputed section:

Para 1.

"Female bisexuality is extremely common while male bisexuality is less common and frowned upon in many clubs, due to a modern form of homophobia."

Analysis: First, defining one's sexuality to exclude male gay sex or your presence during it is not homophobic. (Clearly not, otherwise logically male gay sex would be compulsory, wouldn't it?).

Second, ascribing homophobic motives to people's sexuality is subjective. Where are the studies, where is the proof?

Third, the fact is that female bisexuality is almost universal in swinging (90% plus of female swingers) whereas male bisexuality is almost entirely absent. There are endless research sources that back this up. Where are the studies that contradict it?

Para 2.

"Transgendered persons are relatively uncommon because such people make up a small percentage of the general population. Dozens of swing clubs cater especially to gay or lesbian couples, despite resistance by homophobic elements within the broader swinging community."

Analysis: In the first place setting the swinging scene in the context of gay/lesbian and transgendered people is inappropriate, given these are other sexualities. Articles on gays, lesbians and transgendered people are not set in the context of swingers. Nor should they be. If this was a gay/lesbian/transgendered encyclopaedia and therefore looking at the world from any of these perspectives it would be legitimate. But it is not.

Secondly, "dozens of swing clubs cater especially to gay and lesbian couples". This is untrue at several levels. Firstly I do not believe there are any clubs exclusively for gay and lesbian couples, have never heard of any and request proof. Second, if they do exist they are gay/lesbian clubs not swingers clubs. Third, some swing clubs become gay clubs on off-nights for economic reasons but that does not mean there is no distinction between gay activity and swinging activity. Palpably there is. You can have different sports in the same stadium on different days.

Para 3.

"Even where bisexuals are included, the motivations involved are often somewhat incompatible with those of other bi-positive groups. The polyamorous community differentiates itself from the swinger lifestyle by putting a greater emphasis on long-term relationships and sites will indicate that the "poly group is NOT a contact organization for swingers".

Analysis: First, the ascriptions of motives to swingers' involvements with bisexuals is subjective and also irrelevant. The motive is a sexual one because swinging is a sexuality. No further justification is necessary.

Second, if the polyamorous community defines itself as not for swingers, according to the quote given, then it is an irrelevant intrusion in an article about swingers. Lumberjacks do not define themselves as swingers either. Does this article have to contain a list of every group that are not swingers? A line contrasting swinging with polyamory with a link to the polyamory entry would be appropriate.

Para 4.

"The organised gay community also attempts to be tolerant of bisexuality to some degree, but a heterosexual male trying to fulfill a fantasy of having two women would be out-of-place in the lesbian community. Some bisexual groups within the organised gay/lesbian community, therefore limit their membership to women only."

Analysis: What happens in the gay and lesbian communities is irrelevant in an entry on swinging. In an entry on bisexuality and/or the gay and lesbian communities it would be appropriate.

To the person who posts all this stuff again and again I say please do us all the courtesy of identifying yourself and justifying your actions. If you don't do these things I suggest you should not be taken seriously. The entry in this encyclopaedia about swinging should be factual and not slanted by the perspective of political movements related to other sexualities. Would it be appropiate for evangelical Christians to insist that entries on homosexuality were written from their perspective? Cymro61.


 * What happens in the poly or lesbian communities is relevant if swingers are turning up there looking for "female hot bi babes"; the analogy to lumberjacks or some other group is in that sense completely broken. There's nothing specifically prohibiting lumberjacks from becoming swingers (unless they're in some other undesirable category, such as single males) but at the same time swingers aren't routinely visiting the lumberjack community as if it were a singles bar. As for the link between Christians and homosexuality? There is an *entire* article on that one Christian_views_of_homosexuality which is referenced in various places.

--66.102.74.217 18:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(a) are you the person inserting all this non-factual stuff? (b) Where exactly do swinging couples turn up looking for "hot bi babes"? Are you suggesting that these tangential references to other sexual communities should be placed in the entry on swinging as some sort of revenge for behaviour by some swingers that you personally disapprove? (c) As regards Christian views of Homosexuality, I think that's a fine example. May I suggest you write an entry called Poly & Lesbian views of Swinging and place your opinions there, instead of fouling up a perfectly factual entry? Some of us are trying to get some scholarship done here. Cymro61.

If you're going to dispute the facts in the section on bisexuality, please add any info that you perceive as missing and cite sources. Repeated deletion of basically an entire section of an article solely because it addresses issues with which you feel uncomfortable is not scholarship but vandalism. Why not contribute some text somewhere within Wikipedia instead of continually deleting it? --carlb 16:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am going to change the section on bisexuality yet again, to try and move a number of the issues raised here to the front page. Futher from my own experience, I have never been to a swingers club that wasn't accepting of bisexual men. Though they to tend to be a significant minority. rubingr

Frankly I am bemused by this discussion and I would say it smacks of homophobia and ignorance. FACTS (from a swinger) Female bisexuality in swinging is very common but it is not the norm (despite being well over 50%). As with all aspects of swinging it is considered very impolite and inappropriate to assume the female is bi. It is simply something that may happen. Mentions of Bisexual and homosexual culture (along with TV/TS culture) are appropriate as they are related and often coincide with swinging. A number of married female swingers will only swing with other females and as well as being involved in the swinging scene they are also regulars in lesbian clubs too. Male Bisexuality is nowhere near as rare as has been suggested but due to our society many men do not feel comfortable talking about it or advertising it. A simple look through the adverts on LocalSwingers demonstrates this very clearly... couples and single males say that they are looking for straight couples etc and then in the comments section at the bottom they mention that they may be willing to engage in male homosexual acts if the time is right. The fact of the matter is all swinging clubs in my experience have no problems with male bisexuality and many also have fully bi-nights where couples may be more comfortable experimenting (or simply playing) in this way than they might be amongst other friends. The fact that is being demonstrated here is that we live in a homophobic society (not overtly but covertly) and this is relected in part in the swinging world. Bisexual swingers are aware of this and 'good' swingers rely on good communication throughout. Swingers discuss preferences before swinging and avoid any issues. In an orgy situation (or one where two or more couples are playing with their own partners and then through visual or verbal cues) it is assumed (again by those who know the score and behave properly) that both parties are straight unless anything is said otherwise - again good communication is paramount. --AlanD 13:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a few comments... From what I've encountered, male bisexuals are allowed in groups but still quite rare. Female bisexuals outnumber female heterosexuals, but the rule is to ask orientation first, not to assume. Asking first is the rule on just about anything in swinging! Ask before you touch, ask what level of swinging the other couple is comfortable with, ask if condoms are required, and ask who may touch whom. Communication is definitely important. In fact, I think good communication is a big part the reason why swingers reportedly feel more secure in their relationships. You simply need to have open communication with your significant other if you are in the lifestyle, so that you can let eachother know when you're ready or not, who you do and don't want to play with, what feels good to you, and what you are comfortable doing. If you aren't open with eachother, somebody can end up getting very upset very quickly in swinging situations! Also, I would like to say that in my experience, single females are sometimes allowed at gatherings, but it is as the exception to the rule. Single men seem to be generally forbidden. Like I said, though, these are just some casual comments from what I've seen, so you have another swinger's point of view here to take into consideration if you need it. -Penny


 * Where has your experience been? In the US (see nasca.com), look at clubs, you'll see a rather large number of clubs allow single females, and many allow them for free. I went to the NY page, and found only one that prohibits all singles, while many allowed single women but not single males.  I went to the (randomly) SF area page, and the Illinois page -- none said they prohibit all singles, some said they accept single females.  Every club in the DC area has the same policy: couples and/or single females for reduced or no cost -- David carly 21:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that many people just find the double standard somewhat curious (although it reflects Western societal norms): for most men two chicks are hot, two men are scary. I don't think we should be surprised that "swingers" reflect the opinion of a large percentage of our society - they just act on it more than guys. For some reason male-male action is threatening, female-female action is "hot". It's even more curious when you see the sheer numbers of "straight" guys on the Internet looking to hook up with other guys.

Toronto Club Supports BiMales
The largest lifestyle club in Ontario: Happy Hedonist supports (but doesn't actually encourage) BiMales. A couple of attempted "special events" failed because of lack of preregistrations. Most men are afraid to out themselves but the interest is there and the closed room occurences is higher than most would believe (or admit to). There is a dedicated BI room on their forums.

[So one club is polite but non-encouraging about bi-males and its bi-male events flop. There are 400 clubs in NASCA. My point stands, I think. Cymro61]

British Scene Supports BiMales
The largest British swinging website, Swinging Heaven prides itself on openmindedness and tolerance. While everybody's preferences for their sexual partner's race, size, sexuality etc. are respected, displaying a homophobic attitude is a bannable offence, the "Men Seeking Men" section of the site attracts more advertisers than any other part, and the TV/CD members of the community are highly respected. I don't know of any UK scene where homophobia would be acceptable.

[Nobody is suggesting that homophobia is or should be acceptable and I would expect nothing less than everyone being treated with respect and courtesy. This however does not imply that people want to have sex alongside everyone they are polite to.

It's debateable that Swinging Heaven is the largest British swingers website and if it is that may be because it is free and there is no threshold to entry for timewasters. Because anyone can post an ad for nothing it is also unlikely to be representative of the people who actually do swing. But even if it is the biggest and it is representative, there are currently 19,400 couple/bi-female/heterosexual ads and 5,000 gay male ads. You can't blame a website which earns its money from the number of clicks it receives from casting its support bases as widely as possible. That also does not mean that all the site users want to have sex together in the same environment. Nothing in the "Men seeks Men" section of Swinging Heaven suggests these guys want women to be present while they do their stuff.

But the key thing is that Swinging Heaven is only a contact website, not an actual club where people swing. There are around 100 clubs in the UK and if the fact that gay men are treated politely on one website is the best that can be adduced in support of the proprosition that male bisexuality is common and welcome in swinging in Britain, then I think the opposite has been proved.

Cymro61]

I agree -- the proof is the policy and the actions of the clubs and club members -- not contact websites. -- 206.138.130.3 18:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Bisexual men are very common and well tolerated. The two biggest swingers clubs in the UK both hold very successful Bi-nights. While male/male sexual conduct is still lower than female/female, there really is no homophobia within the lifestlye. These bi nights are for fully bisexual couples, and are very well attended by people of all description. Bi males, bi females, TV's, TS's, and transgendered people.

Lanata --81.13.217.42 17:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Go on, name the clubs, so we can check... :) Lovingboth 09:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is the case in the UK, but I can assure you that male bisexuality is not common, nor is it well accepted in the United States. There are bisexual males, but events for bisexual males are not common in the US scene. I have never heard of anything like this. It might be accepted in the homosexual scene, but the crossover between female and male bisexuality is not anywhere near as common as in the UK. -M

Bisexuals and other "bi-positive" groups
I removed this paragraph:

"Where bisexuals are included, motives are often incompatible with those of other bi-positive groups. Many members of the polyamorous community differentiate themselves from the swinger lifestyle by putting a greater emphasis on long-term relationships and sites such as will indicate that the "poly group is NOT a contact organization for swingers"."

Lots of contact groups aren't contact organisations for swingers. This seems obvious in the extreme. So just because some bisexuals swing, we're surprised that not all bi-positive groups are swingers? Polyamory and swinging are fundamentally different, but that doesn't mean that they are incompatible.

Imagine if the text said "Where heterosexuals are included, motives are often incompatible with other hetero-positive groups."

Inkwell 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dogging
I'm too new to Wikipedia to go hacking at something with a 'disputed' label, but there should be a link to the Dogging article somewhere, as that's essentially a Subgroup, like 'urban swingers'

Dogging - This should be added as a subgroup to swinging but unfortunately I don't know enough about it beyond it being both a seperate scene to swinging worthy of its own entry and a scene that intercects sufficiently with swinging to be mentioned as a subgroup. I have linked the Dogging section at the bottom--AlanD 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

What about those opposed to swinging?
I have noticed that many pages try to be objective and show both points of view, even those that dispute the article in general. An example would be pornography and the inclustion of a subsection of those agaisnt pornography, as well as an article alone about the anti-pornography movement. I was going to add that myself, but I wanted to ask first, is there a reason why a subsection stating the objections to swinging should not be included? (just recently got an account, hence the odd time stamp.)--Simao rod15 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Has such an article ever been submitted? If not, surely no-one is obliged to submit such a commentary? Dazzla 14:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that in the interest of objectivity, at least a subsection should be included why there is opposition to swinging and the "lifestyle". (The two major objections being health safety and moral objection.) I'm mearly stating such a subsection is needed to add objectivity to such an article, as is found in others such as pornography, and the subsequent anti-pornography movement subsection in pornography and separate article.--Simao rod15 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As has already been stated this would require someone to come up with such an article and to be able to justify it with evidence. Given that safe sex is the default in virtually every swinging club where as it may not be in a drunken trist behind a pub on a Saturday night the sexual health aspect is a suspect comment. Moral objections are frankly irrelevant as if people aren't hurting anyone else then what is the problem?--AlanD 13:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that it would be best, for the purposes of objectivity, to include a section on objections to the swinger lifestyle. I tried as best I could simply to state the objections, without any moral connotations both for and against the objections. There should however be a section based on the response to such objections. I felt it would be best if those accually participating or at least with greater knowledge than I to fill it in. However if I find that a one of us has not come up to with a response to such objections, I will endevor to do further research beyond Wikipeida to search for such answers.

Please feel free to edit as you wish, as the pupose of such a revistion is not to attack a point of view or way of life, but rather to provide the most objective article possible. --Simao rod15 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

In my revisions, I wanted to add a response to the objection of the sacred nature of sexual relations. However I felt as thought any response I would give would not be an objective response (as it would seem from what I have seen and read that swingers would deny this sacred nature of the sexual relationship)and so I hesitate to put any response down like I did with the pregnancy objection. Any response given should be one that answers the objection without insulting the author which is something I fear I may inadvertently do. I would highly recommend someone in a better position than I response to this in the objection.--Simao rod15 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible Copyright violation
I am very sorry that I noticed this -- but it seems like somebody copied.

See http://www.thecottageinpa.com/documents/101.html.

I didn't want to use an official notice, because I don't want this to get deleted or anyone in trouble.

But sombody better do a rewrite quickly `` David carly 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. Bits of Wikipedia are copied by sites everywhere. I wrote parts of this article myself and I know I wrote them here not anywhere else. I assume this other site is being mentioned here because the owner wants to bump his click count. Low, in my humble opinion. Cymro61

Singles
First off, the following seems like ads and discussion, which belong here on the talk page. -- David carly 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One club states "We receive approximately 2 single females requesting to join our club for every 200 single males that request to join our activities...We will not take the time to match up single with singles and have only matched up a few couples with 2 singles in the past seven years!". Others disagree that this experience is generally true among swingers. A female member of one club points out, "Where we are, single females are a dime a dozen, but a decent single male is next to impossible to find. ... We as a couple would actually prefer a single male for our next encounter. ... More often than not, I see the single females approaching the couples, and not the other way around. ... I've had to turn down several aggressive single females who were quite frankly TOO forward about wanting to play with a couple.". This is simply not true, almost everyone in the lifestyle is seeking single females, the are known as the "unicorns" of the lifestyle.


 * I have to back the previous person up. I have also heard the term "unicorn" -- meaning, with only slight exaggeration, that nobody knows if they actually exist.  Look at any yahoo list, e.g., and count the single F's vs single M's.  Even clubs that allow single men at a high cost, and single women for free, have an overload of men.  (As for the comment: "We as a couple would actually prefer a single male for our next encounter." doesn't mean that single women are common). -- David carly 21:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

See the post in the Single Males section of this about clubs in the South-central and Midwestern United States areas. Kraz_Eric 06:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: Greedy Girls nights. While this may be an instance of multiple sexual partners, I don't think it is specifically relavant to swinging. If women are paid to attend, then those women could be single, and/or all of the men involved could be single. Rather than talking about swinging, which is the sharing of multiple partners, "greedy girls" is simply a wild orgy.


 * If the nights were called "Greedy Wife's" nights, when a man offered up his wife to multiple men, then I think it would pertain to swinging more directly. But as it is now, I don't see a connection between the two, especially if women are paid to attend. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this prostitution????


 * So called "greedy girls" may be paid, but are not always. Surely, from reading this article you can see that swinging is about much more than simply partner swapping?  Swinging is not exclusively for couples.  That maybe the starting point, but many swinging couples are looking for singles, not other couples and singles can join most clubs.  "Greedy girls" nights are an important feature of the UK swinging scene and couples *do* attend. Inkwell 21:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hot wife merger
OK, so "hot wife" got merged in. Do we still need that notice up top? Just curious. If not, let's get rid of it. (And also somebody fix the copyright problem before this entire entry gets into trouble!) -- 206.138.130.2 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyright?
How do we know that we copied it from them? The date on the root directory of that file says Jan 2006, and this article is older than that. I think they copied it from us. Inkwell 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I googled around, and lots of sites have the same thing WP does. I suspect there is one root source, and lots of people are copying.  It is possible that the very first version was WP, but somehow I doubt it. David carly 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Going back to the first edits of this article, it looks very much like this is the root source. The first drafts of this article are very short and they build up slowly and gradually, not in big copied chunks.  The only repeats I can find on the internet are much later edits. Inkwell 09:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Debate over the constant adding of a certain external link on this page
(Moved from the top of the page) I have changed the 600 clubs in Europe and 400 in America because it is exclusive of the rest of the world and i have found a site that has over 3,000 worldwide club listings in it that i believe is a more accurate and all inclusive "WORLD" view of swinger clubs. (Unsigned comment)

Ok, we'll compromise. I'll change the text so it says "over 3,000 clubs worldwide," but without the link. Inkwell 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not objective to opponents of swinging
The only mention of opponents makes quick dismissal of their views and does not give credibility to anyone who does not agree with the lifestyle. Also, the "research" uses anecdotal evidence and is not backed by any research I have come across. How can you measure one couples "happiness" vs another?? Since "happiness" is subjective by nature, how can it possibly be measured and compared?


 * The research is externally linked to the source and certainly backs up other statistics I have read on the same topic. Things like "happiness" are hard to measure and that's why sociology will never be like mathematics.  I think that editing the article to discuss whether or not any sociological study can be objective would be off topic.


 * As for the opponents of swinging, the space given to their views seems equal to the space given to the common responses to their views. I can't see how it can be improved without adding "some people don't like swinging because they don't want to do it themselves".  What would you like added or changed?Inkwell 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of the article and its editing from user Swingers
Here’s the problem with this page:

1.	The content was not rewritten but rather stolen verbatim from this website: http://www.thecottageinpa.com/documents/101.html.

3.	'Urban swinging' began with Fever Parties [3] in London in the late 1990s and involves affluent metropolitan young people, discrimination on the basis on looks and an upper age limit usually around 40. Urban swinging events include mostly childless, unmarried young graduates and can have average ages as low as the late twenties, whereas ordinary or 'suburban' swingers events tend to have average ages in the 40s. Urban swinging subsequently spread to Manchester (UK), Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the USA. This is not true and an obvious plug for fever parties, parties of this nature have been going on long before the 1990s see the skin party or the bliss party etc.

4.	Urban swinging subsequently spread to Manchester (UK), Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the USA. This is demographically incorrect, urban swinging for want of a better word probably started in Amsterdam at world famous clubs like fun4two which has been in business for 26 years.

5.	There are over 3,000 swinging clubs worldwide. I added this correction while you have chosen to leave it in you have not chosen to leave the source of information namely http://www.swingersclublist.com, I run this site, its free so its not a commercial plug and because I run this site I know there are currently 3012 swingers clubs in the list while you choose to use this information you chose to remove the source of this information, wouldn’t a wikipedia user reading the swinger document want accurate and up to date information of the worldwide swingers clubs it is referencing?

6.	Regarding SDC and your removal under the acronym of is just wrong. SDC Media owns both a federal trademark registration for its SDC mark, U.S. Registration No. 2,818,125, and a pending U.S. trademark application for the same term. Type SDC in Google, what do you get? http://www.sdc.com hence Google seems to think sdc.com is the number one ranked website for the term sdc yet you do not, I wonder who's right?. The term SDC means swingers date club we own the trademark on it, you can buy a logo pin of it - https://www.sdcmedia.com/cc_sdcpin.aspx?AccountID=, you can buy t-shirts with it on - www.cafepress.com/lifestylegear/1182919, you can buy an adult movie starring its members - http://sdc.adameve.com/p-8833-swinging-in-the-usa.aspx, you can see the SDC clothes line - http://www.wickedtemptations.com/sdc-sdc-wear-styles.html, you can see us featured on playboy tv, and hbo. I want to reference SDC because it is the WORLDWIDE website in six different languages for swingers (BTW we do call ourselves SWINGERS, it is the number one term for our lifestyle according to Google analytics yet in wikipedia they seem to think the movie swingers is more important for that term, this is asinine.)

7.	You talk about swingers club and parties but do not reference any, surely people would like to see accurate examples, we have over 50 parties a month worldwide, no other website has this but still you surreptitiously moderate this topic without actually thinking about the benefits of examples. If you want real examples of real swingers parties, clubs and communities currently active you only need to look here - http://www.sdc.com/subdomains.aspx. I am defending SDC because it is a definitive source worldwide for swingers in six different languages and I think people interested in researching swinging would want to know about it, correct me if I am wrong?

8. The critique of urban swinging among traditional swingers is that it is unethical to discriminate. For example the North American Swing Club Association (NASCA) does not accept into membership clubs which are not open to all and some couples may advertise themselves as "not Ken and Barbie" as an implicit rejection of what they perceive to be a superficial ideal of youthful physical attractiveness. If this was true why do i find sites on nasca with descriptions as follow: 1.the premier adult-dating website, catering exclusively to sexy young couples & singles world wide, 2.is an upscale lifestyle site catering to only the sexiest couples and single women, 3.Exclusive Parties in Luxurious Hotels for L.A.'s Sexiest People. (L.A.S.P) LA's exclusive weekly sex parties for 20-25 sexy young couples and several single women.

(Unsigned comment, 16:41, 14 February 2006 from user Swingers - moved from the main discussion page as it dominated and hid other important topics - Inkwell)

This discussion was also posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inkwell, where I responded. I haven't repeated my comments there. Inkwell 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In reply to some of these points:

1. This article IS from Wikipedia and has been copied elsewhere and not just by the site mentioned. I know because I wrote some of it and I wrote it here.
 * Glad to have that sorted. Inkwell 09:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Urban swinging involves an actual rather than a notional upper age, minimum looks thresholds and even competitive entry leading to an average age around 30. The events mentioned do not fit into this cateory.


 * That is a false statement. The Skin Party and the Bliss Club, the examples cited by the original poster, both fit perfectly into that category.  Both have strict physical appearance standards that the promoters enforce by requiring photo approval for new guests.  Both are frequently criticized for the same reasons presented in the article.  There are plenty of other examples, including parties that operate within 'ordinary' swing clubs like Miami Velvet.  The "urban swinging" references in this article are clearly intended as promotional material for a specific party in London.  The references listed in that section consist only of promotional materials from the parties and promoters in question and are not objective.  The existence of similar events and community niches in the US from at or before the time of the parties listed in the article are a clear refutation of the notion that those parties were the origin of the niche.  "Urban swinging" is not a uniquely British phenomenon or one that provably originated in the UK.  The entry as written is not objective and is over-reaching.  (TeamSoBe 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Skin Party claims not to be a swinging club, and I can't see the rules for the Bliss Club to check. Neither say when they started, nor can I find any reference to any similar organisation which ran prior to 1997.  I am UK based, so wouldn't know.  All I know is that the information is correct for the UK.  Some changes to show how similar organisations began in the US would be useful.Inkwell

4. Fun4two is not in Amsterdam it is in Rotterdam, it in no way discriminates as to who can enter. Howling errors like this suggest the writer does not know what he is talking about.

7. SDC.com is above average but not definitive. I am often in its chatroom and its clientele appear to be almost exclusively in the UK, the Netherlands and Texas with a few in Spain. Huge swathes of Europe and the USA are unrepresented let alone the rest of the world.

8. NASCA seem to have changed their policy from the original one which was much more broadly non-discriminatory. They now focus on racial and national discrimination. However, the sites mentioned are just using marketing language. They don't actually have competitive entry. Cymro61


 * although we don't care much about trademarks, here is an answer to that "charge" . SchmuckyTheCat 23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Section lifted from article
I took this out because I don't think it's clear enough. It doesn't really make sense to me.
 * "Many conservatives might claim that, like many (so-called) victimless crimes, swinging (and more generally – sexuality) is not merely private people's business, but has drastic effects on society as a whole. These people, if subscribing to a view that swinging is "unnatural", a moral corruption, or merely inconsistent with some aspired form for society, may conclude that in order to maintain a "healthy" society it is necessary to enforce or educate for a certain amount of discipline."

Inkwell 22:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll explain myself.
 * This was meant to be an answer to the following:
 * "There are various responses to those who object to swinging on the basis of their faith. Many swingers feel that their activities in their own homes or private clubs, which don't hurt others, aren't for others to judge." (From the article)
 * "...I can't see how [the section on objections] can be improved without adding 'some people don't like swinging because they don't want to do it themselves'". (Inkwell, on the talkpage)
 * The idea is that many people (devout Christians for example) would think that "sexual corruption" is not only bad for themselves, but very bad for society.
 * This is an important and relevant point to cover, and I think we should keep it. It may well be badly written... in which case I ask: would you agree to touch it up yourself? That way we can make sure that you'll be satisfied with it... Anyhow, I propose the following revision:
 * "Many conservatives might claim that, like many (so-called) victimless crimes, swinging is not merely private people's business, but has drastic effects on society as a whole. Subscribing to a view that swinging is undesirable, these people may conclude that in order to maintain a "healthy" society it is necessary to enforce or educate for its abolition. Thus, swinging is not merely peoples privet business."
 * --Jonathan Shafer 01:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I can see what you're getting at, but it needs to be more specific and preferably use sources. At the moment, it reads a little like "conservative types don't like swinging because they think it does bad stuff to society".  It needs to be specific.  I can't see how to touch it up, because I don't understand exactly what the point of it is.  Could you point me to some writings that give these views? Inkwell 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

While extreme social conservatives (read: Religious right, Moral Minority types) may have issues with swinging, in the 10 years my wife and I have been doing this, the majority of people we've talked to would qualify as conservatives politically. I. This misconception that all conservatives are against swinging needs to be fixed. I myself am very conservative in most respects. While this is a personal observation, it may have some bearing in the discussion. You may also note that the predominantly liberal Democrat City Council of Indianapolis is directly responsible for attempting to close 2 well known swingers clubs in thier city.

Law/Legal issues
We should add Law/Legal section to here. Last month in Canada question aboult legality of on-premise swingers clubs was brought up to Supreme Court. Any lawers whoc will be willing to take on task? When we travelled to South American country for vocation we were unsure on whenever club is legal there ...


 * I am a Lawyer, and willing to tackle this to some degree, though a warning should be included that laws can vary from state to state and country to country widly regarding these issues... However I am not very good with the Wiki format and will have to rely on someone else to move this to the main board after reasonable discussion.
 * Currently Swinging in the United States is legal as a practice and likely protected from direct state interferance due to the recent US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas. This ruling held that there was no valid state interest in criminalizing consensual homosexual activity between consenting adults and overturned Texas' laws outlawing homosexual conduct. While this case does not directly effect swingers, the same logic applies in that so long as the participants are over the legal age for consent in the state where that activities occur and gave consent the state seems to lack the ability to directly outlaw swinging. Under this logic is seems that the state does not have the power to in any way limit swinging that occurs at a persons home.
 * Lawrence however does not limit that ability of local governments to indirectly control or outlaw swinging at bars or clubs however. The most common way to limit swinging is through the use of laws restricting alchohal liscenses from being distributed to businesses which allow full or partial nudity. In these localities many swing clubs are forced to make a choice to either not allow alchohal, or to not allow swinging on the premises. This is why most on-premises clubs ask guests to bring their own liquor, since they can not legally sell it. The other way in which swinging clubs have been restricted is through zoning ordinances that specifically outlaw types of businesses in an area. These zoning laws are generally created narrowly in order to effectively only effect the swingers club. While these types of ordinances could be challenged in court, few clubs have both the resources to engage in a protracted legal battle, or the desire to continue such a fight since it is likely that a members list would become available to the general public as a result of legal discovery. Specifically of interest is Phoenix Arizone when they passed Ordinance 'Sec. 23-54. Findings; definitions; live sex act businesses prohibited' which outlawed charging to enter a business to provide the oportunity to engage in sexual activity or to watch sexual activity. This ordinance was upheld at least throught the Federal Circuit court of appeals and is the best example of an ordinance drawn to prohibit Swinging.

While this does nothing to outlaw swinging per se, it does outlaw swinging clubs very effectively. Thus while even today it is legal to participate in swinging, the operation of an 'on premisses' club in the city would be prohibited.

Canadian law has adressed a similar issue though in a slightly different way. A recent Canadian Supreme Court ruled held that the operators of a swing club did not violate the law in doing so. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Kouri. Under this ruling while it is never stated, it seems to be reasonable to conclude that if operating a swing club is not a violation of the law, then participating in swinging would not be either.


 * I can help with the Wiki formatting. I am a big fan of verifiable references for newly added material. I will gladly format all the references you want to add for the new material. Kelly 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Any instance discussing lawrence should be cited back to the Wiki article on it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v_Texas I think it easier to do that than to try and put if formal citations due to the inability of most ppl to get much out that, and the wiki article is pretty good.


 * I write a lot about psychological perspectives on relationships, and the majority of my references are to publications in scientific journals and books. That's mostly because I try to write both for lay readers and for undergraduate students who may be doing research. But this is your work and you get to make some decisions! Here's the verifiability policy in a nutshell. Kelly 07:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

History section
The entire first graf in the history section is NPOV. Its lone source appears to be an Internet questionnaire (dubious to begin with) of self-identified swingers, meaning that it had no control group and can't be used to compare characteristics of swingers to non-swingers. | Mr. Darcy talk 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've edited the history section to reflect the lack of neutrality in the sampling technique. Most swingers have actually read this article and are aware that it doesn't reflect the swinging population as a whole. There are equally as many failed relationships within the swinging community as elsewhere. However, those relationships which are successful do seem to be more happy.


 * →Just something History related I learned over the years. The Term "Swinger" supposedly comes from a priest who compared people jumping from bed to bed to monkeies swinging from tree to tree. I would check this for accuracy though as I'm not sure where I learned it from. --68.163.14.88 05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Craig


 * I have removed the reference to the Lifestyles Organization. I was the one who originally put it in there, but within the past few years, the Lifestyles Organization has claimed trademark over the term "Lifestyle" and is currently in the middle of a number of lawsuits against any and all other organizations that use the term.


 * The trademark "Lifestyles" is actually owned by Trojan condoms, so the Lifestyles Organization has no lawful claim to the term and is more or less bullying smaller organizations. They are attempting to seek removal of the term "Lifestyle" in its entirety from any and all usage on swinging web sites.


 * The Lifestyle Organization no longer represents even a tiny fraction of the swinging community, and has drawn the disdain of the majority of swingers nationwide. -M


 * It looks as though user Lsotaipan is attempting to hardball even Wikepedia into preventing usage of the term "Lifestyle". Clearly the edits made on September 16th reflect this.

Single Males in clubs
In my experience, just about all swingers clubs allow single males, but only on one or two days of the week. I did a random internet search for swinging clubs and found the same thing: most clubs do "couples only" nights as well as nights where single men are allowed. Very few clubs exclude single males altogether - they get a lot of money from them.

This is true, however, large groups of single males are almost never a welcome commodity. However, there is a difference between an on-premise club, and a Lifestyle group that organizes parties. Single males are rarely allowed at Lifestyle related parties, though they may be allowed at physical clubs.
 * I don't dispute that they aren't welcome, and it is true that they are rarely welcome at parties, but it the paragraph in question is about clubs. Maybe an edit about parties would help here. Inkwell 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of off-premise clubs in the South-central and Midwestern United States do not allow single males. Most off-premise clubs in this region are couples only, with some allowing single females sponsored by a couple. The few on-premise clubs available in the mentioned area allow select, often limited, singles. The larger events often allow all.

Kraz_Eric 06:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

STDs
Someone has recently added uncited statistics related to STD's and swingers in this article. Namely --

1) An incident of 95% for genital herpes among those in the lifestyle, and 2) An incidence of 75% for HPV

These figures are preposterous. First of all, the incidence of HPV cannot be measured accurately, even in the regular population due to that fact that the majority of those infected are asymptomatic. To claim an accurate figure among a different subset of the population is tenuous at best.

With regards to herpes, this claim is ludicrous. I would like to see figures from an objective medical journal that even comes close to this. The claims have been deleted until they can be verified. 14 April 2006

You might want to put those statistics back in:

From the CDC website: http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm

Approximately 20 million people are currently infected with HPV. At least 50 percent of sexually active men and women acquire genital HPV infection at some point in their lives. By age 50, at least 80 percent of women will have acquired genital HPV infection. About 6.2 million Americans get a new genital HPV infection each year.

"For those choosing to be sexually active and who are not in long-term mutually monogamous relationships, reducing the number of sexual partners and choosing a partner less likely to be infected may reduce the risk of genital HPV infection. Partners less likely to be infected include those who have had no or few prior sex partners.

HPV infection can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. While the effect of condoms in preventing HPV infection is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical cancer, an HPV-associated disease."

From an article on Sciance Blog (from the University of California - San Francisco)

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2001/D/200114556.html

More than half of sexually active young women will be infected with human papilloma virus (HPV) if they remain sexually active over three years, a UCSF study shows. That risk is boosted 10-fold with each new partner.

Finally from Wilkipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_papillomavirus

HPV is by far the most common sexually transmitted infection. It is said to be the cause of 99% of both cervical and prostate cancers. It is estimated that 80% of sexually active adults have been infected with one or more genital HPV strains at some time.[1] The vast majority of infected people suffer no ill effects and never even know that they have been infected, but may be able to infect others.

If the risk is so high among the general population then there the likelyhood of it being even greater among the lifestyle people. There is a common theme among Swingers to gloss over the risks inherent in their actvities, just as sky divers or other high risk people tend to ignore the risk factors in those activities. This is normal. As HPV can be spread even while wearing a condom, any sexual activity is risky, increasing the number of partners, particularly if those partners have had a large number of partners who have had a large number of partners....etc.... drastically increases the risk. It might be argued that the general population (expecially the casual sex people) have essentially the same risk, but this is a flawed analogy. A person engaged in frequent casual sex may frequently encounter partners who have had few partners. However, in the more open lifestyle community, there is a tendency to have multiple partners and so have each of them.

As a final anecdotal bit of evidence, I have known 3 people who were in the swinger lifestyle, all 3 got HPV, one got HEP-B.and later Syph. and 1 got HIV In contrast, none of the 20 odd people I know who are essentially single but atill active sexually have acquired a single STI).


 * My issue is not with the prevalence of STD's within the population as a whole. My issue is with the application of statistics to the swinging lifestyle as being different than the sexually active population as a whole. I will submit that it is probably that STD's are higher among any subset of the population enganged in activities such as this, however, accurate statistics are not present. This was my major qualm with the figures. I'm editing this particular section to reflect this. Please make any changes you feel necessary also.


 * Out of all the swingers I know, I've only met one who contracted HPV, and none who have contracted anything else. Either way, there are no statistics to show the prevalence of STD's among swingers. -M

STDs and Condom Usage
Recent figures related to condom usage were added without any citation. The majority of them report that condom usage is lacking, and that STDs are once again more prevalent than currently reported. While this may or may not be true, using statistics without sources is negligent. I have removed them and reverted to previous edit.

---

I will put them here then, as they should have been in the first place. No link was provided because the poll was done on a swingers website...and a disclaimer was provided. If you question it, please visit. Again, it is a small sample, but representitve of our own experience.

As experienced Swingers, and sponsors of a Swingers Social Club, and the poll reflects our experiences.

As originally posted..

"However, condom usage is not set in stone. A recent online survey showed only 40% of the Swingers polled (excluding Soft Swap Couples) consistently required condoms. Of those who claimed to always use condoms, only 56% regularly got STD tests. Of the 60% polled who do not consistently use condoms, 69% regularly went for STD tests. Regular STD testing consists of a minimum of twice a year. (This poll information was updated on 6/20/06, as it is an ongoing poll)

It should be noted that this study, while useful, does not represent the whole of the Swinging community. It is a small sample of the estimated 3 million Swingers in the United States alone."


 * "Regular STD testing consists of a minimum of twice a year" - twice a year??? I don't know anyone who goes that often single or swinger.  Let's not forget that many swingers don't even swing twice a year.
 * I would also like to know more about the questions in the poll. As a swinger, I don't consistently require condoms, because I don't practice penetrative sex with any but my regular partner.  Not using condoms is not the same as barebacking. Inkwell 22:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the discussion page for Inkwell on these questions.

Kraz_Eric 00:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC) -

As a swinger, I have been to many parties, clubs, and get-togethers. In my whole experience I have never seen a situation where condoms are not used. Furthermore, "barebacking" is it is known, is widely looked down upon in the swinging community as dangerous, discourteous, and rude. Though it does occur, it is certainly not the norm.

--

The lack of condom use is only a problem if not discussed. As with any preference or requirement, communication is key. And I don’t know where you have been, but as a club sponsor, and as part of a couple who visits both off-premise and on-premise clubs approximately twice a month, within a 4-state area of the US, we have found that a large percentage do not require condom usage 100% of the time, if at all.

Many feel that, based on studies, condoms do not protect fully against the most common of diseases, and STD testing is the most effective way to prevent the spread of disease. Some also feel the loss of sensation, or potential ED is not worth it if they are not very effective. Some feel that any protection is better than none. This is a constant and ongoing debate that will probably continue for a long time.

Perhaps in other parts of the nation or world, this is different (and that possibility is addressed in the disclaimer), we do not know….but the assumption that condom requirements are the rule as a whole is incorrect.

Kraz_Eric 01:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This poll is completely unscientific. It's reliability is approximately the same as asking 10 of your swinging buddies whether they use condoms or not. I am also part of a swinging couple that has been present at many parties, clubs, and lifestyle events, and in modern times the use of condoms is EXPECTED.


 * STD testing is not effective against the spread of disease. If you are STD postive and discover this AFTER you've had sex with 4 people, what purpose has this served? STD testing is useful for your own safety, but the primary mode of STD preventing among the swinging community is currently condom usage.


 * While I agree that condom usage may not be a requirement at clubs, it is certainly the norm among the Lifestyle community.

-

Did you go and look at the poll in question...a link to the site was posted at one point; or to the other page on here with more information? The fact remains, that a large percentage, from both personal experience and poll results, do not require condom usage. Usage may be different depending on region, etc. The poll in question is (at this point) of over 240 Swinging couples and singles in the Midwestern US. A small percentage of the Swinging community, as mentioned in the disclaimer.

Deleting information that does not fit someone’s "perfect world view" of the Lifestyle changes nothing. There are too many assumptions as it is. Kraz_Eric 18:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC) -

The latest edit is nearly perfect...fairly unbiased and honest. Kraz_Eric 18:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of condoms and other barrier methods of protection varies from organization to organization. Many segments of the Lifestyle population are strict about condom usage, including the changing condoms between partners. However, some members of the swinging community do engage in unprotected sex, in a practice that is commonly known as barebacking. Those who do engage in unprotected sex with other partners do so at their own risk with the full consent of everyone involved. It is considered a polite necessity to establish these ground rules before becoming sexually involved.

Well it WAS about perfect and realistic until it got edited AGAIN. Kraz_Eric 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Inkwell's position corresponds with mine. The use of condoms in the lifestyle is a product of sexual awareness during modern times. I have known some couples who do not use condoms, but most of these are new to the scene. In an informal poll that I conducted on my own web site, it found the use of condoms to be in the realm of 95% of respondents.


 * I think Inkwell's edit confirms my belief, but I'm willing to add an additional sentence or two just to be fair.


 * The main reason I edited the text was to tighten the style rather than the content. Condom usage varies amongst people, not organisations.  An organisation can't use condoms, and no organisation would claim that every member exhibits exactly the same sexual behaviour.  Stating that people bareback "at their own risk" is not encyclopaedic, but rather obvious.  And saying that they do so "with the full consent of everyone involved" is unnecessary, as the article has not claimed anywhere that swingers sexually molest each other.  The other main change was to make the point about changing condoms between partners clearer. Inkwell 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

obscene picture?
let me be clear: i love swinging, swingers, and wikipedia! and i was quite surprised to see the picture PeterFendi_Erotic_Scene.jpg on the swinging page - wow! but isn't it obscene (against community standards of decency), and couldn't that ultimately cause trouble? perhaps it should be a link away? 71.214.92.7 12:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC) jonnie


 * I've always thought this picture is rather silly myself, too. -M


 * Picture as published is mirrored reflection of original? If you look it up on Art.com, or reproduction I am referring to is wrong?

And so what happened to the picture? It's been deleted, but I can't see when in the history log. -jonnie

Coercion
I think a section devoted to coercion should be included. I know that swingers always say that they watch out for this, and that "No means No". However, there are many women who are sub-servient/submissive to their husbands and as such may fall into the category of being emotionally "blackmailed" into swinging. These women would not necessarilly obviously coerced into the lifestyle. Swingers advocates try to stress that this is not the case. I find it telling however, that the most vocal advocates of swinging are male.


 * Do you have any evidence, any citations, any source, to back up your claim that "many women" are coerced into swinging? -- David carly 03:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think adding a section on coersion will do nothing more than introduce more areas where a lack of neutrality is present. There are no statistics about coersion, other than personal opinion. A section such as this would be nothing more than hearsay and opinion. -M


 * Please be careful when using words like "submissive" with a topic like this. Within the lifestyle (and also the BDSM community) "submissive" has multiple meanings, and associating it with terms like "coercion" only further confuses the subject and demonstrates your prejudices and lack of understanding.  Also, the statement "the most vocal advocates of swining are male" is purely anecdotal and has no statistical basis.  Furthermore, as an anecdote I would dispute that notion with the statement that the most powerful advocates of swinging are female. - D


 * In my personal experience, as a woman and a swinger, there is definitely an element of coercion within the relationship of many swinging couples. However, it should be stated that all facets of society are represented in the swinging lifestyle; there are swingers from all walks of life, and in all states of mental, physical, emotional and spiritual health.  Problems such as coercion occur when the health of the relationship and/or the health of the people in the relationship is unbalanced or unhealthy.  From personal observation of swinger's clubs, getting to know other swing couples, and discussion on an active swinger's messageboard, it is apparent that swinging ideals promote a level playing field for both men and women, where each person is held accountable for their conduct, and each person is to be given equal respect and recognition for their needs (physical, emotional, relational, sexual, etc).  Anytime this does not happen, it is because one or more people involved are not engaging in swinging in a healthy manner.

Life after Swinging
Also, a section on life after swinging might be in order. As it seems that many give up the lifestyle as time goes on. Either through choice, aging, changing relationships etc... it does seem that most "swingers" eventually return to the monogamous lifestyle
 * Do you have any information on this? I don't know of any swingers who "returned" to a monogamous lifestyle, though I know of plenty who stopped because of family commitments, jobs, bereavement etc but got back into it when they were settled (or intend to).


 * I know that not many keep swinging into their 80s, but I hardly think that is groundbreaking information.


 * Even if many did "leave the lifestyle", I don't think that would be important - lots of people play tennis for a few years, then stop. Lots of people go on camping for a few years, then stop.  If some couples swing for a few years, but then drift out of it, it doesn't seem that crucial to me. Inkwell 06:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this article is about swinging, not life after swinging. -M

Hmm, your question could just as well have been called "Life after monogomy".

History
The statement here that swinging arose among pilots and their wives during WWII is obviously an inept attempt to concoct a fairy tale supplying a heroic origin for swinging. In fact, servicemen's wives were not allowed to accompany their husbands overseas. Pilots slept in barracks, if they were lucky. Even the Supreme Commander, Eisenhower, didn't have Mamie with him, not even in England! Douglas MacArthur was the exception, but his wife was with him in the Philippines before the war started. user:Stedder 13:41, 15 August 2006

I had heard that it was a small cliche of test pilots all stationed in the desert. Well, what we need are concrete references, rather than urban legend. Atom 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The history section does not state this as fact, only reports it as relayed from Gould's book. I have seen other references to its history beginning in California in the 1950s.

"Wife swapping" misogynistic?
"Swinging is sometimes called wife swapping, but this term is now relatively archaic, due to the misogynistic implications inherent in this phrase."

This is POV at best, or possibly just flat-out wrong. There are no mysogynistic implications inherent in the phrase "wife swapping." Even if it were true, it would not explain why the term is "archaic." There are plenty of misogynistic expressions in common use, and there could also be plenty of reasons why the term is falling out of use -- the obvious one being that couples are getting married much later in life (or not at all) today than in the 60's and 70's when the term was popular. At worst, the term is androcentric; but it's not misogynistic. Blackworm 11:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and edited accordingly. Hope you approve of the changes.  I also changed the reference to the term "The Lifestyle" as this is not common usage outside of the swinging community. Inkwell 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I added this many months back. The original implication of "wife swapping" implies that only the wives are being swapped, and that the males are somehow in charge of the process. Most swingers consider the term mysoginistic, since in current swinging relationships, the female swaps husbands just as frequently. You are correct in that "andocentric" is the word I was looking for. Thanks for the help. -M

Urban swinging - redifine as "Selective Swinging"?
The only reference I can find to "urban swinging" is from this article, or derivatives from it. I can find no evidence that the term has ever been used outside of Wikipedia.

Would anyone have an objection to a rewrite to remove the term and replace it with a more generic title? Something that links together the types of organisations mentioned without making it sound as though there is a definitive term that defines them.

Inkwell 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone agree or disagree? I'll start on a rewrite and see what people think. Inkwell 11:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've done it. The term "selective swinging" seems far more descriptive, easily understood, and is actually used outside of Wikipedia.  It's required a jiggle around of the information, but it is basically the same.  I disagree that the "urban" nature of these events is key; after all, the majority of swinging clubs are in cities.  Hopefully some other people will work on this section now.  Inkwell 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

External links - the good, the bad, and the ugly
Those who keep this article on their watchlist know that it suffers from daily spamming. Nonetheless, certain external links are helpful to the article. Seems that lately the solution has been to just eliminate all external links and avoid the problem altogether.

I think we'd all certainly agree that links to specific swinger "post your profile here" sites are verboten. Ditto on the sites that organize/host parties and M&Gs, or specific club sites.

I'd think that swinger organizations (such as NASCA) would be okay, as would links to news articles (such as the one at ABC News). If I'm way off base here, please speak up! OscarTheCat3 21:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the way I look at it. Generally an article should have few, if any external links.  Either the article is unrelated, and should not be there, or it is related and it should be incorporated into the body of the article, and cited in the references section.  For instance, a section on national organization, etc.  In a few rare cases, an article needs to not get too long, and there is medical, technical or scientific information best presented elsewhere, and then an external link might be a good way to indicate that for the interested readers.  Also, if someone has good information, adds a link, and intends to follow up and add it to the article later. Atom 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An equally reasonable position, and on re-reading WP:EL, probably more in line with established policy. I've worked the NASCA link into pre-existing text in the article, and added a sentence (for now) about the John Stossel report.  I'll remove the ABC News link from the bottom after I've had a chance to write a summary of the article, sticking the link there instead.
 * I could care less about the Christian Swingers site. Anyone who wants to remove that link, I won't revert.
 * OscarTheCat3 01:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Nasca does not belong, it promotes the Lifestyle Organizations other businesses. Nasca is part of a for profit entity, linking to them and not allowing links to other dating sites is unfair, thus those sites keep adding themselves.

Links to the ABC story are not authorized by ABC and must not be listed. Unless you have written permission from ABC and those that were in the story.


 * Please tell me your source for this policy. I've read through the ToS on their site, and can't find anything that would restrict a third party from linking to their site.  I'll wait a few days for your response before I put the link back in.  Thanks! OscarTheCat3 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I for one was on that show, and was told, and signed papers to the effect that I can reproduce or link to the site. If such a link were allowed, it would be a promotion of ABC.  Why allow promotion of anything if you won't allow promotion of actual related sites.   Hypocrisy!  Allow links or do not allow links.


 * What about links to informational magazines such as: http://www.lifestylemagazine.com/lsmwinter04.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.151.64.158 (talk • contribs).

If you will not allow links to dating sites, then do so globally, there are many sections that have links to 'articles' on dating sites with links back to that site, or worse yet an affiliates link farm.


 * In this article? If that's the case, then they should probably be removed, yes. OscarTheCat3 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Things like http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm should be removed, or link directly to the article, not a copy on a site with google adwords at the top. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.151.64.158 (talk • contribs).
 * I have no idea what you're talking about here. When I click on that link, all I see is a researched scholarly article, with references, that was used as a source for portions of the Swinging article.  I don't see any Google ads.  I'm going to put this one back in, considering it was cited as a source for the article. --OscarTheCat3 22:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding, the top of every page of that site has 3-4 google ads on it, maybe you have an ad blocker running or you have some monetary investment in those ads. Sflbicouple 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish I had monetary investment in swinger ads -- I could probably retire. No, you were right on the first count, Firefox with AdBlock (Get Firefox!) is blocking the ads.  Regardless, the ads themselves are not the issue, the content of the linked page is the issue.  The content of the linked page is a source for the wiki article. --OscarTheCat3 23:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per your own page on wiki Look for spam. If it comes in the form of articles, nominate them for deletion with ..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.151.64.158 (talk • contribs).
 * Per my talk page? I said no such thing directly.  I'm just trying, as we all are, to adhere to policy.  I do occasionally help out with the new article patrol, and won't hesitate to  an obviously spammy article, however. --OscarTheCat3 22:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)  Read your own page, that comment was copied off YOUR page.Sflbicouple 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)  I did, and it isn't there.  But that's not the issue anyway. --OscarTheCat3 23:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, if you can't understand the difference between a genuine citation of an article with useful content (the Google ads are totally irrelevant) and just adding a dating site to the bottom of the page, you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all.Inkwell 22:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

References now has links to a dating site and I can't edit that.Sflbicouple 14:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with allowing links to dating sites? No one has to click on them, but they offer information and are a valuable resource. Not allowing those links is counter productive. The internet is about a free flow of info and links, without links, it's not part of the internet.


 * Because Wikipedia is not a collection of links. OscarTheCat3 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Be consistent, do the right thing globally, or allow nothing.Sflbicouple 18:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, this is utterly crazy. Appropriate links and genuine citations have been deleted and the quality of this article has been compromised.  This is obviously someone with a chip on their shoulder that their link was deleted. (Check through their history - they had a link removed from "external links" and have since been on a link-removing frenzy.)


 * The links that have been removed are not promotional - they are citations and are relevant to content. Why is it okay to discuss Fever Parties, but not have their link?  Without the link, there is no citation and this is against Wikipedia policy.  Not only that, but genuine news articles have been deleted which were not promotional.  No one had any interest in promoting the Metro, but that article was relevant and backed up the facts here.  Could we put our sensible hats back on and make some reverts? Inkwell 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put back most of the deleted links (diff); Inkwell, Mwanner, and other regular editors of this article, please review and make sure I didn't screw anything up. :-) Thanks!!  --OscarTheCat3 23:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Brilliant. Changing them to references tidies things up.  Inkwell 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)