How many know of sharing couples?

[shakirmoledina]

Kinda a sensitive question but do you know of a group of people or friends who swap their wives with each other for a physical relationship?
I know of a story of 7 who keep their room keys in a bowl then a person chooses one of the keys and goes to tht person whose room key he took... kinda sad actually

 

[ShadowSoldier]

You mean open relationships. I know somebody. Not exactly a swinger party person, but w/e.

 

[monkat]

I'm in an open relationship, but I'm not part of a "swinger" ordeal, no.

And why is that sad?

 

[ineap09]

Wow, that's crazy! Why the heck did they bother getting married if they were just going to get a random new wife sex partner every how ever often they do that?

And man, conversations the next day must be wacky. O_O

Dude #1: "Dude, I picked your wife's key last night and it was great!"
Dude #2: "Dude, I know, that's' why I chose her! Hey who'd you get Dude #3?"
Dude #3: "Dudes, I totally picked my own room, what a bummer."

Plus, to me, this sort of thing lowers the human to more of an animal.

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Wow, that's crazy! Why the heck did they bother getting married if they were just going to get a random new wife sex partner every how ever often they do that?

And man, conversations the next day must be wacky. O_O

Dude #1: "Dude, I picked your wife's key last night and it was great!"
Dude #2: "Dude, I know, that's' why I chose her! Hey who'd you get Dude #3?"
Dude #3: "Dudes, I totally picked my own room, what a bummer."

Plus, to me, this sort of thing lowers the human to more of an animal.

It's peoples ideas of having fun or whatever.

Just because they have sex with other people, doesn't mean they're not loyal to their husband/boyfriend.

 

[ineap09]

It's peoples ideas of having fun or whatever.

Just because they have sex with other people, doesn't mean they're not loyal to their husband/boyfriend.

Hmm...you have a point there.

The whole idea still seems really strange to me, but I can't really see anything wrong if everyone involved is okay with it.

This is indeed the first time I've ever heard of anything like this. Pretty interesting actually. It's not for me, but "to each his own."

 

[rastsan]

wow - toronto actually has more then several outright clubs for this, I personally have a forever invite to about 5- 20 weekly sex parties where people are "shared".

I got into it to find the ultimate orgasm (lightning hit is still number 1)
group sex and partner switching is okay but can get boring after a while. doesn't mean I still won't do it.
My boyfreind really isn't into group sex (at least with me... sigh)

I have been down a long interesting road going where-ever I have to find something as good, but as oy yet no luck... ah sex

 

[shakirmoledina]

i guess the concept of marriage has changed. Usually you commit yourself to him/her even if there is more than one. But when u have sex during marriage with others then i dont see why one is married
anyway i just heard this was happening in our community so i wanted to know what the situation is outside

 

[monkat]

when u have sex during marriage with others then i dont see why one is married

Marriage is not equivalent to sex with one person for the rest of your lives.

The concept of marriage, in regards to this, hasn't changed - the concept of sex has.

No longer are we weighed down by the sex-love bonding that was forced to exist by people. While it does seem that sex creates a feeling of bonding between two people, love is entirely different.

We all have sexual desires and fantasies. Why prevent yourself from fulfilling your desires (and ultimately happiness), because you love someone? Why force them to abandon their desires and happiness?

 

[ineap09]

We all have sexual desires and fantasies. Why prevent yourself from fulfilling your desires (and ultimately happiness), because you love someone? Why force them to abandon their desires and happiness?

And the answer is...*drum roll*...religion! Yay!

What about those who have really questionable fantasies such as those into child porn, and those into bestiality? Should they have the ability to fulfill their desires?

 

[monkat]

What about those who have really questionable fantasies such as those into child porn, and those into bestiality? Should they have the ability to fulfill their desires?

Well, yes, in certain facets.

Am I encouraging them to go up and fuck children and dogs? Absolutely not, but mock scenarios are fine, as is faked (see: not real. see: not actual children and animals being fucked) porn involving children and animals.

The law (and by association our morality) exists in that we can hold people accountable for their actions. We can not hold people accountable for finding enjoyment in something, as that is entirely separate from any sort of will. Their fantasies can exist, they can be aroused by children and midgets dressed as such all they want - just as long as they do not traumatize the partner.

 

[ineap09]

Well, yes, in certain facets.

Am I encouraging them to go up and fuck children and dogs? Absolutely not, but mock scenarios are fine, as is faked (see: not real. see: not actual children and animals being fucked) porn involving children and animals.

The law (and by association our morality) exists in that we can hold people accountable for their actions. We can not hold people accountable for finding enjoyment in something, as that is entirely separate from any sort of will. Their fantasies can exist, they can be aroused by children and midgets dressed as such all they want - just as long as they do not traumatize the partner.

From what I can tell, your reasoning is flawless. What you say makes complete sense.

This sentence especially: "We can not hold people accountable for finding enjoyment in something, as that is entirely separate from any sort of will." There are so may people who need to realize this.

 

[shakirmoledina]

from the very beginning u may have realised i was looking at this in the view of religion... religion doesnt change, general pop's thinking does

 

[Koumori_Knight]

Well, yes, in certain facets.

Am I encouraging them to go up and fuck children and dogs? Absolutely not, but mock scenarios are fine, as is faked (see: not real. see: not actual children and animals being fucked) porn involving children and animals.

The law (and by association our morality) exists in that we can hold people accountable for their actions. We can not hold people accountable for finding enjoyment in something, as that is entirely separate from any sort of will. Their fantasies can exist, they can be aroused by children and midgets dressed as such all they want - just as long as they do not traumatize the partner.

From what I can tell, your reasoning is flawless. What you say makes complete sense.

This sentence especially: "We can not hold people accountable for finding enjoyment in something, as that is entirely separate from any sort of will." There are so may people who need to realize this.

First, what is reasonable discussion doing in the EoF?

Second:
while I agree with monkat almost completely, I believe he is ignoring the sad fact that true pedophiles do not merely become aroused by children, they seek an emotional bond with them and do not see that as wrong, which is what makes them so dangerous.They would never cause harm to a child intentionally, but the very nature of what they desire is harmful. Child molesters seek someone to have power over and/or act out their repressed anger on. That it takes on a sexual manifestation is secondary.
would you say that a guy with a fetish for raping women is going to settle for fake situations for very long? Very unlikely.
Similarly, allowing fake situations in porn would only serve to embolden child rapists.
Burn in Hell Max Hardcore!

 

[ineap09]

First, what is reasonable discussion doing in the EoF?

QUOTE(Koumori_Knight @ Dec 12 2010, 01:39 PM) Second:
while I agree with monkat almost completely, I believe he is ignoring the sad fact that true pedophiles do not merely become aroused by children, they seek an emotional bond with them and do not see that as wrong, which is what makes them so dangerous.They would never cause harm to a child intentionally, but the very nature of what they desire is harmful. Child molesters seek someone to have power over and/or act out their repressed anger on. That it takes on a sexual manifestation is secondary.
would you say that a guy with a fetish for raping women is going to settle for fake situations for very long? Very unlikely.
Similarly, allowing fake situations in porn would only serve to embolden child rapists.
Burn in Hell Max Hardcore!

Under the safety of being behind a computer, and only having a user name to go by, I reveal that by definition, I am a pedophile. I do not seek emotional bonds with children, in fact, I mostly ignore and avoid children. Does this mean I am a false pedophile then?

What you are talking about seem to me like more extreme cases where the perpetrator is mentally ill to some degree(childhood trauma maybe?). If this is so, shouldn't it be evident in other areas of their lives as well?

You say, "would you say that a guy with a fetish for raping women is going to settle for fake situations for very long? Very unlikely." This completely depends on the person's self control. I'm sure that if this guy had enough self control, he could live his whole life with only fake situations.

I mean, I get turned on by thinking of kids doing f'ed up things, but I am never going to do anything sexual with a child, nor will I force any child to do anything sexual in nature by themselves, or with others. I have enough self control. Surely those who do not have sufficient self control could gain some through training(therapy?). I don't see how you could say I'm not a "true" pedophile when I fit its definition perfectly. I think you mean the more f'ed up pedophiles, or the more mentally unstable pedophiles, but true pedophiles?

Sorry, I'm acting defensively. It's just that I consider myself a true pedophile because I fit it's definition, therefore I felt you were saying that I would do those things as a true pedophile, and I got a little offended since I would never do those things.

Anyway...I'm done now.

 

[Koumori_Knight]

First, what is reasonable discussion doing in the EoF?

QUOTE(Koumori_Knight @ Dec 12 2010, 01:39 PM) Second:
while I agree with monkat almost completely, I believe he is ignoring the sad fact that true pedophiles do not merely become aroused by children, they seek an emotional bond with them and do not see that as wrong, which is what makes them so dangerous.They would never cause harm to a child intentionally, but the very nature of what they desire is harmful. Child molesters seek someone to have power over and/or act out their repressed anger on. That it takes on a sexual manifestation is secondary.
would you say that a guy with a fetish for raping women is going to settle for fake situations for very long? Very unlikely.
Similarly, allowing fake situations in porn would only serve to embolden child rapists.
Burn in Hell Max Hardcore!

Under the safety of being behind a computer, and only having a user name to go by, I reveal that by definition, I am a pedophile. I do not seek emotional bonds with children, in fact, I mostly ignore and avoid children. Does this mean I am a false pedophile then?

What you are talking about seem to me like more extreme cases where the perpetrator is mentally ill to some degree(childhood trauma maybe?). If this is so, shouldn't it be evident in other areas of their lives as well?

You say, "would you say that a guy with a fetish for raping women is going to settle for fake situations for very long? Very unlikely." This completely depends on the person's self control. I'm sure that if this guy had enough self control, he could live his whole life with only fake situations.

I mean, I get turned on by thinking of kids doing f'ed up things, but I am never going to do anything sexual with a child, nor will I force any child to do anything sexual in nature by themselves, or with others. I have enough self control. Surely those who do not have sufficient self control could gain some through training(therapy?). I don't see how you could say I'm not a "true" pedophile when I fit its definition perfectly. I think you mean the more f'ed up pedophiles, or the more mentally unstable pedophiles, but true pedophiles?

Sorry, I'm acting defensively. It's just that I consider myself a true pedophile because I fit it's definition, therefore I felt you were saying that I would do those things as a true pedophile, and I got a little offended since I would never do those things.

Anyway...I'm done now.

Most intriguing response....
I apologize if I offended you, I mean no ill will.

However, I must note that my definition of pedophile does differ from most. My wording may have been too ambiguous, again I apologize.
Indeed you do fit the bill, however the big difference is that you merely harbor a sexual attraction not an emotional one. I also strongly doubt you look at child porn, which I think is the worst thing...I should have made a distinction. There are those who for whatever reason have sexual thoughts about children, those who desire emotional closeness with them, and those who seek to exploit them.
That you have the self-control to resist harming a child is truly commendable, but not all do. And very few will admit it to people they care about so that they can be helped, in what ever way is appropriate. You yourself said that you are admiting it only because you are anonymous. I have no problem with people who fantasize, but it does not negate the fact that there are some that will feel validated by such exercises and then actually act upon their urges.

Like I said, I agree with monkat; so long as no one is harmed fantasy is just fine!

 

[ShadowSoldier]

Religion sucks. Sex rules.

/thread

 

[monkat]

Religion sucks. Sex rules.

/thread

You have easily just made the most intelligent argument in this thread.

 

[ineap09]

Most intriguing response....
I apologize if I offended you, I mean no ill will.

However, I must note that my definition of pedophile does differ from most. My wording may have been too ambiguous, again I apologize.
Indeed you do fit the bill, however the big difference is that you merely harbor a sexual attraction not an emotional one. I also strongly doubt you look at child porn, which I think is the worst thing...I should have made a distinction. There are those who for whatever reason have sexual thoughts about children, those who desire emotional closeness with them, and those who seek to exploit them.
That you have the self-control to resist harming a child is truly commendable, but not all do. And very few will admit it to people they care about so that they can be helped, in what ever way is appropriate. You yourself said that you are admiting it only because you are anonymous. I have no problem with people who fantasize, but it does not negate the fact that there are some that will feel validated by such exercises and then actually act upon their urges.

Like I said, I agree with monkat; so long as no one is harmed fantasy is just fine!
Thank you for clearing that up. I had assumed the offense was unintentional, but I wanted to be sure.

very few will admit it to people they care about so that they can be helped, in what ever way is appropriate. You yourself said that you are admiting it only because you are anonymous.
It's true that I haven't admitted my pedophilia to anyone I know, because most of the people I know would definitely start treating me different if they knew, and the others who might not treat me different would be a gamble to test. I have, though, sworn to myself that if I am to ever be married, that I will indeed need to make sure my wife knows of this since I believe that complete honesty is needed for a close relationship. But then again, my pedophilia, as you mentioned, isn't the worst version, therefore I do not feel the need for others to know if there's a chance of a ruined relationship.

Like I said, I agree with monkat; so long as no one is harmed fantasy is just fine!

So basically, pedophiles can fantasize as much as they want, they just need to make sure that if they ever act on it, for both their lives and potentially the lives of others involved are ruined/damaged.

QUOTE(ShadowSoldier @ Dec 12 2010, 03:24 PM)

Religion sucks. Sex rules.

/thread

You have easily just made the most intelligent argument in this thread.

 

[rastsan]

uh so did not see this thread heading this way...
If you are curious sexually - indulge your curiosity but nothing against the law or agianst the/those partners will.
Everyone can have pleasure why deny it?