Dying to know what you think of this in relation to "soft swinging" and the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, if you're familiar. Sounds like it overlaps a lot! !
1) Soft swinging, if we assume that means having sexual interactions with your primary partner present (as opposed to partner swaps, where your primary partner isn’t present) is a perfectly legit way to practice CNM, so long as everyone is on the same page.
2) “Soft” swinging is a community term, and not a professional term. The adjective “soft” is a bit problematic because it suggests that it’s less than, in some ways, partner swaps where the primary partner isn’t present.
3) From what I’ve read, it seems like Taylor from SLMV had no idea what the specific terms of agreement were, and that’s the problem. She’s defined soft swinging in different ways in different interviews. Often, the lack of clarity around agreements lead to them being breached, and ensuing pain on the part of the partner.
4) This often applies to people who grew up in high-control religious spaces (i.e. Mormonism) who attempt to have sexual experiences different from their community. The spirit of sexual freedom is there, but the communication skillset required to describe specific agreements for sexual experiences and sexual arrangements in an ethical way is lacking.
Numerically speaking, soft swinging (or swinging in general) involves one or two dyads, so two groups of two or one group of four. 3-somes and cuckolding involve three. Relational dynamics are often more complicated with groups of three--there's always a 2 v 1 imbalance--that can be equally parts stressful and extremely erotic for folks.
Again, consensual non-monogamy, as with most forms is sexuality, is much more about the how--in this case, the specificity of the agreements made and the ability to follow-through. While the what (i.e. the couple arrangement) gets more publicity, more people talk about enjoyment if the "how" is clearly defined and followed through.
As for the other question, I've also anecdotally observed that swinging is popular inside and outside of high-control religious groups. I'm also extremely biased because most of my work is with these couples. I haven't seen any official research that supports this though. I have some ideas about why this might be, but my ideas are conjecture.
Excellent info. Thank you so much for taking the time!
I am former Mormon and write about Mormon culture and patriarchy a lot, and I also can conjecture. My guesses would have to do with trying to avoid the loss of status/consequences of divorce and keeping the couple intact to avoid that.
It also of course mimics the non-monogamy of Mormon founders (polygamy) but in a way that might feel more “Mormon” and familiar, even if subconsciously.
The part about non-monogamy mimicking the polygamy of Mormon founders makes a lot of sense. That would be a really interesting research process to interview contemporary Mormon 20-50-somethings and ask them about their perspectives on CNM.
Excellent info. Thank you so much for taking the time!
I am former Mormon and write about Mormon culture and patriarchy a lot, and I also can conjecture. My guesses would have to do with trying to avoid the loss of status/consequences of divorce and keeping the couple intact to avoid that.
It also of course mimics the non-monogamy of Mormon founders (polygamy) but in a way that might feel more “Mormon” and familiar, even if subconsciously.
Isn't what a lot like saying dieting causes obesity? I make quite a few points in the article--just making sure that I understand what you're referring to.
Forgive my denseness. I don't study diet culture, so I'm curious if there's something that you've observed from dieting culture that mimics the pattern of Purity Culture creating the environment (eroticism) that it's attempting to eradicate (premarital sex), and then blaming/shaming people for accessing the eroticism that it creates?
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Perhaps my analogy was inapt.
You say that purity culture creates eroticism, but I'm pretty sure eroticism exists in every culture. The fact that people involved in a purity culture also experience erotic desires means they're human, not that they're victims of purity culture.
You're right--eroticism exists in every culture. And to be fair, the issue that I'm bringing up is not the existence of eroticism (using Jack Morin's definition that eroticism equals attraction plus obstacles.)
The issue that I'm bringing up is that Purity Culture punishes people for engaging in the erotic contexts that it (italics) creates by moralizing consensual premarital sex, saying "You are a bad person for doing ____." Which actually creates more eroticism. Which then creates more shame, leaving lots of folks in a really awful cycle between eroticism and shame, which carries over into the marital relationships. This is one of the core issues that comes up in our relationship coaching business and therapy practice.
I'm sorry to hear there's so much 'overkill' there. I was never part of purity culture, even though my wife and I (35 years married) were virgins when we married and have remained monogamous throughout. I see nothing wrong with giving advice, or even moral instruction, but I don't approve of the condemnation that might accompany failure to heed it.
Also: maybe it's me - slightly neuroatypical - but I've never understood the whole "it's forbidden, which makes me want to do it more" schtick. I either want to do it or I don't, and it doesn't matter what others think.
I appreciate your desire to help hurting people. Have a great day!
Dying to know what you think of this in relation to "soft swinging" and the Secret Lives of Mormon Wives, if you're familiar. Sounds like it overlaps a lot! !
Ooh great question, and so much to unpack.
1) Soft swinging, if we assume that means having sexual interactions with your primary partner present (as opposed to partner swaps, where your primary partner isn’t present) is a perfectly legit way to practice CNM, so long as everyone is on the same page.
2) “Soft” swinging is a community term, and not a professional term. The adjective “soft” is a bit problematic because it suggests that it’s less than, in some ways, partner swaps where the primary partner isn’t present.
3) From what I’ve read, it seems like Taylor from SLMV had no idea what the specific terms of agreement were, and that’s the problem. She’s defined soft swinging in different ways in different interviews. Often, the lack of clarity around agreements lead to them being breached, and ensuing pain on the part of the partner.
4) This often applies to people who grew up in high-control religious spaces (i.e. Mormonism) who attempt to have sexual experiences different from their community. The spirit of sexual freedom is there, but the communication skillset required to describe specific agreements for sexual experiences and sexual arrangements in an ethical way is lacking.
YY so much! I just learned more about it than I have on the show!
If I may ask a follow up, given your description, how is soft swinging different from a 3-some or cuckolding? Or is it?
Also, I’m wondering if you have thoughts as to why swinging is more prevalent in high-control religious groups. Something about the culture?
Numerically speaking, soft swinging (or swinging in general) involves one or two dyads, so two groups of two or one group of four. 3-somes and cuckolding involve three. Relational dynamics are often more complicated with groups of three--there's always a 2 v 1 imbalance--that can be equally parts stressful and extremely erotic for folks.
Again, consensual non-monogamy, as with most forms is sexuality, is much more about the how--in this case, the specificity of the agreements made and the ability to follow-through. While the what (i.e. the couple arrangement) gets more publicity, more people talk about enjoyment if the "how" is clearly defined and followed through.
As for the other question, I've also anecdotally observed that swinging is popular inside and outside of high-control religious groups. I'm also extremely biased because most of my work is with these couples. I haven't seen any official research that supports this though. I have some ideas about why this might be, but my ideas are conjecture.
Excellent info. Thank you so much for taking the time!
I am former Mormon and write about Mormon culture and patriarchy a lot, and I also can conjecture. My guesses would have to do with trying to avoid the loss of status/consequences of divorce and keeping the couple intact to avoid that.
It also of course mimics the non-monogamy of Mormon founders (polygamy) but in a way that might feel more “Mormon” and familiar, even if subconsciously.
The part about non-monogamy mimicking the polygamy of Mormon founders makes a lot of sense. That would be a really interesting research process to interview contemporary Mormon 20-50-somethings and ask them about their perspectives on CNM.
Excellent info. Thank you so much for taking the time!
I am former Mormon and write about Mormon culture and patriarchy a lot, and I also can conjecture. My guesses would have to do with trying to avoid the loss of status/consequences of divorce and keeping the couple intact to avoid that.
It also of course mimics the non-monogamy of Mormon founders (polygamy) but in a way that might feel more “Mormon” and familiar, even if subconsciously.
Isn’t that a lot like saying dieting causes obesity?
Isn't what a lot like saying dieting causes obesity? I make quite a few points in the article--just making sure that I understand what you're referring to.
I'm sorry for being unclear!
Isn't "purity culture creates eroticism" a lot like "dieting causes obesity?"
I'm still not following your logic.
Forgive my denseness. I don't study diet culture, so I'm curious if there's something that you've observed from dieting culture that mimics the pattern of Purity Culture creating the environment (eroticism) that it's attempting to eradicate (premarital sex), and then blaming/shaming people for accessing the eroticism that it creates?
I appreciate your thoughtful reply. Perhaps my analogy was inapt.
You say that purity culture creates eroticism, but I'm pretty sure eroticism exists in every culture. The fact that people involved in a purity culture also experience erotic desires means they're human, not that they're victims of purity culture.
You're right--eroticism exists in every culture. And to be fair, the issue that I'm bringing up is not the existence of eroticism (using Jack Morin's definition that eroticism equals attraction plus obstacles.)
The issue that I'm bringing up is that Purity Culture punishes people for engaging in the erotic contexts that it (italics) creates by moralizing consensual premarital sex, saying "You are a bad person for doing ____." Which actually creates more eroticism. Which then creates more shame, leaving lots of folks in a really awful cycle between eroticism and shame, which carries over into the marital relationships. This is one of the core issues that comes up in our relationship coaching business and therapy practice.
I'm sorry to hear there's so much 'overkill' there. I was never part of purity culture, even though my wife and I (35 years married) were virgins when we married and have remained monogamous throughout. I see nothing wrong with giving advice, or even moral instruction, but I don't approve of the condemnation that might accompany failure to heed it.
Also: maybe it's me - slightly neuroatypical - but I've never understood the whole "it's forbidden, which makes me want to do it more" schtick. I either want to do it or I don't, and it doesn't matter what others think.
I appreciate your desire to help hurting people. Have a great day!
Well done. 🙌🏻
Thanks so much Nadia! We really appreciate your support!!