Burning leaves and football season. Busch Light and college. Moth balls and your grandmother.

Certain scents seem to evoke strong emotional memories—a phenomenon psychologists have long referred to as the “Proust effect” after the writer Marcel Proust, who first described the connection between scent and recollection.  But your eyes may be just as important as your nose when it comes to memory recall, argues a new study from Dutch researchers.

A team from Utrecht University showed 70 people a disturbing video accompanied by specific sounds, lights, and smells. A week later, the researchers split the participants into three groups and exposed each to just one of the three sensory cues. During this sensory stimulation, the participants rated the intensity and vividness of their memories of the film.

Both the light and scent stimulation evoked more detailed, unpleasant, and arousing memories than the sound cues, according to study author Marieke Toffolo, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist at Utrecht U. (Speaking of arousing scents, use our Fragrance Finder to select a cologne that’ll make her want to be close to you.)

So are images just as effective as scents at evoking memory? The jury’s not out, Toffolo says. First of all, the memory of the film was only a week old. That qualifies it as a long-term memory, but may not carry the same emotional weight as a memory of, say, a childhood summer spent working on a farm.

Other researchers have hypothesized that scent is effective at evoking emotional memory because the olfactory system (i.e. your schnoz) is located very close to your brain’s centers of emotion (the amygdala) and memory (the hippocampus). But Toffolo says there isn’t much proof to back up that idea. She adds that more work is needed to determine if there’s an extra-special connection between your memory and your sense of smell.

While science is working it out, try to use both visual and olfactory cues to your advantage. Rekindle the sense of excitement you felt when you first started dating your wife by splashing on whatever cologne or aftershave you were wearing when your relationship began. Couple that with an outfit you used to wear. Tell her to do likewise, take her back to the site of your first date, and the good ol’ days may not see so far in the past.

REFERENCE

A pistachio-rich diet improves sexual function in men with symptoms of erectile dysfunction (ED), according to a study recently published in the International Journal of Impotence Research: The Journal of Sexual Medicine.

In the Turkish study, participants ate 100 grams of pistachios (about one cup) at lunch every day for three weeks. At the end of the trial, the 17 subjects scored 50 percent higher on an erectile function questionnaire compared to pre-diet scores. The men saw improvements in erectile function, sexual intercourse satisfaction, orgasmic function, overall satisfaction, and sexual desire. Plus, blood flow in the penis increased 22 percent, as measured by ultrasounds.

“Pistachio nuts are relatively high in the non-essential amino acid arginine, which appears to maintain flexible arteries and to enhance blood flow by boosting nitric oxide, a compound that relaxes blood vessels,” notes lead researcher Mustafa Aldemir of the Atatürk Teaching and Research Hospital in Turkey.

The men in the study also showed significant improvements in cholesterol levels—likely because pistachios are also rich in unsaturated fatty acids, dietary fiber, and plant sterols. Previous studies have shown a link between cholesterol level and ED.

While a self-prescribed bag of pistachios once a day may represent a sly, and salty, alternative to consulting a physician, the results should be considered preliminary. Talk with your doctor if you think you may have erectile dysfunction.

—Kyle Western

REFERENCE

NOW GO HAVE A NUT.... or two *wink*

Modern Love: Sex & Relationships

Our experts talk share their thoughts on mating, dating, and relating.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Happy Together

Can two wild, impulsive, spontaneous lovers find happiness together?

by Roy F. Baumeister, Eppes Eminent Professor of Psychology and head of the social psychology graduate program at Florida State University, and author of The Cultural Animal and Psychology Today’s Cultural Animal blog.

What mix of partners makes for the best relationships? For decades, research has pitted two theories against each other. The similarity theory, which is the usual winner, holds that the smaller the differences between two people’s personalities, the better match they make. In contrast, the theory of complementarity says that opposites attract; therefore the bigger the difference, the better.

What about self-control? In recent years, evidence has pointed toward many benefits of self-control. This raises a challenge for the similarity theory. Can a good relationship form between two people who are similar precisely because both lack self-control? Or would complementarity make a better pair, such that one partner is disciplined, organized, and reliable, while the other brings spontaneity and a carefree attitude to the romance?

Several recent studies by Kathleen Vohs, Catrin Finkenauer, and myself have begun to sort out the answer. We assembled dating couples, married couples, and even pairs of same-sex friends, measured their self-control levels, and looked at how the combination of self-control scores predicted their satisfaction with the relationship.
The difference between partners’ scores predicted nothing. Neither similarity nor oppositeness produced a good relationship. These results contradicted both theories.
Rather, it was the total of the two scores that predicted success. The more self-control both partners had, the better they got along. This was true for friends, dating couples, and long-term spouses.

We did find that in romantic relationships (though not the same-sex friends), partners tended to be more different than similar. Thus, in terms of self-control, opposites do seem to attract – but oppositeness does not make for a better relationship.

Thus, to return to the question of whether two people with low self-control can find happiness together, the answer is that the odds are not good. They might have a very exciting and fun-filled fling for a short time. However, their prospects for a satisfying long-term stable relationship are poor. Over the long run, two people with good self-control share the best chance of a happy love relationship.

Read more by Roy F. Baumeister on Psychology Today’s Cultural Animal blog.

READ MORE:    http://blogs.webmd.com/sexual-health-sex-matters/

 Responsible Non-Monogamy

Introduction

Many couples enjoy seeing their mates enjoying sexual pleasure with someone else, without jealousy or fear of loss. Many happily married committed couples are opening themselves up to finding other couples to be close friends and also open to exploring sexual sharing to add variety to their already fulfilled sex lives. Just like they can love more than just one child, many couples find they can sincerely love other adults as people and spirits without loving their life partner any less. Many couples that don't need outside relationships to be fulfilled, find expanding their sexual options enhance their already wonderful relationship with their mates.

If you are like most people who want to explore responsible open relationships, you feel very isolated in a culture that assumes that monogamy is the only legitimate option for intimate relationships. For years open people have learned to stay safely in the closet. Unfortunately, closets are notoriously poor places to meet people. Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc. have managed to create viable subcultures, but those of us who want sincere long term open relationships are often adrift in the hostile mainstream of indoctrinated society.

The Swinging Lifestyle Myth

There are myths galore about swinging. Are they without morals, oversexed, guilt-ridden and shameful slugs of the sexual underground? Is it true that women only swing because their husbands forced them? Swingers are very ordinary people who admit to themselves they want their sex lives to involve more than what a purely monogamous relationship can deliver. They choose the freedom to act to broaden the range of their activities without endangering their relationships or their families.

The swinging lifestyle attracts people from all walks of life and professions. Don't be surprised to learn that the innocent-looking wife next door likes to drag two or three men onto a bed at a time and be smothered with their attentions without any guilt.

Committed Relationships

Swingers are not cheating on their spouses, rather they do it together or with each other's knowledge and consent. Swinging allows all humans to fulfill their need to be enjoyed, admired and sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex in addition to their own partner. Swinging can allow you to enjoy a different sexual rhythm with someone you click with as a friend as well as sex partner. The loss of sexual anxieties and heightened self confidence account for much of swingers' enthusiasm.

Swinging is not the bar scene with guys trying to hit on women. Women tend to be just as interested in what is between a man's head as between his legs. It is committed couples allowing themselves to share special friendships and intimacy with other couples they enjoy. It's like an extended family.

Sensitivity and Consideration

Swingers love sex but they also love people and treasure the close friendships that develop. Couples are looking for sensitivity and understanding not just sex objects. Those who do not share this considerate attitude will not be invited a second time by most swing groups.

The byword is consideration; ladies going to their first swing party won't be abused. The men are in average condition; most will never be Chippendale material. The women are also average as in the general population. The men are not mythical studs; the ladies are not whores.

Swinging involves social interaction, including the possibility of sexual interaction if mutually desired, so those who wish to explore the lifestyle need not fear ostracism or rape. All a couple needs to cope at the first swing party is a concern for the feelings of each other and common sense. If all you want to do is talk with others about the lifestyle, your find conversation easy. You won't be laughed at if you choose not to undress; remember, it is very likely that everyone at the party exercised great caution before deciding swinging was something they wanted to do.

You Will Not Like Everyone

Some people you may meet are not the ideal swingers. But if you take the time to relate to people, you will find most couples are very considerate, especially if they know you are still exploring the lifestyle. As in all of life, some people you will connect with and have much in common, and with others you will not. You need to confidently say thank you for asking but I'd really rather not if someone approaches you that you don't want to relate with.

Jealousy & Women's Sex Drive

Women are usually less prone to jealousy than men. Women more often go through feelings of inadequacy. Men more often have to work through feelings of jealousy. Women overcome inadequacy when they find that other men find them attractive and want to share with them.

Women don't tend to be jealous but they are initially more afraid, often coming to their first experience because their husband wants to go. Women don't know if the men will have diseases or if they are going to jump on them. Women only want special guys because that's how they have been taught all their lives. They are not sexually oriented the same way men are. With men its sex and love and with women it's love and then sex. With experience and just talking with others the first few times, women learn that there are nice people who are swingers, that they have families, and learn sexuality is acceptable rather than a dirty private thing. Men have a high sex drive; that seems to be the nature of life. But women do not have by nature a high sex drive until they are within a relationship with someone they enjoy. Although slower to enter the lifestyle, women tend to become the most enthusiastic once they relax and start relating to others. A woman's sexuality is often stronger than man's, once she is willing to trust and relax.

The Christian and Swinging

The Bible has been misquoted and mistranslated to falsely suppress sexuality. There is nothing inconsistent with biblical Christianity and open responsible relationships. In fact, such sincere relationships may be much more in line with Christ's teachings. We have prepared extensive papers on Biblical Sexuality that discuss in great depth all the scriptural issues. Clearly, responsible non-monogamy should not be a problem for Christians that understand the original texts as understood in the culture in which the Bible was written.

Other Brief Ideas

"Swingers" are known to have a lower than normal divorce rate. One study showed divorce rate among swingers was only 5% compared to the normal rate of 40% for traditional marriages. Swinging is for people who like people. There is more honestly of feelings between couples and can make a marriage more exciting with openness and carefully selected sexuality with other friends.

The initial reluctance of women can be traced to how most women (and many men) were brought up to think about sex. We have been told that sex and love have to go together. No one wants to be exploited, but most humans relish the idea of pleasure with sincere caring and love for another as a person, but not as a permanent possession.

Sex can offer so much more if we break the chains of our indoctrination and understand that sex -accompanied with caring - is beautiful in itself. Studies have also shown a much lower incidence of sexual diseases among sexually responsible and informed people. AIDS is really not an issue since heterosexual men are acting as a block to its spread. Women should use condoms until they are sure the male is not bisexual or a drug user. Your risk of getting killed in an auto accident on your way to the swing club is probably 10,000 times higher than getting AIDS. While women do have to be more careful, it is statistically almost impossible for a male to get AIDS from a female by heterosexual sex. We have prepared a very extensive report on the real facts and risks of AIDS without the false scare tactics.

Historically Few Cultures Monogamous

Highlights from Omni Magazine 9/93: In the West, we assume the "natural condition" is monogamy, with significant investment in offspring by the husband/father. But a worldwide sample of over 1,500 human cultures strongly argues that the vast majority either encourage or at least tolerate polygyny - several women married to a single man. In most cultures, women would be furious if a law were passed that decreed they could not become the second, third, or sixth wife of a wealthy, high-status male when the alternative was a monogamous union with a poor, low-status male. High-status males almost always have numerous wives and lowest status the fewest. Clearly, culture makes a huge difference.

Time Magazine August 15, 1994 features a very extensive article "Infidelity - It may be in our genes" which confirms the unnaturalness of trying to be monogamous.

More On The Monogamy Myth
In previous reports we've discussed how unnatural and unusual monogamy has been in human history. Here is some more interesting information. Nearly 1,000 of the 1,154 past or present human societies ever studied have been non-monogamous (either polygyny or polyandry). For a more thorough discussion see "History of Marriage systems", by G.R. Quale, or some of the many other scientific, historic references available.

Anglican Bishop Says "Adultery is built in to the genes"

Source: Adam Magazine 9/95
LONDON- An Anglican bishop has come out and stated that adultery is built in to the genes, and that humans were not born to be sexually faithful. "God knew when he made us that he has given us a built-in sex drive to go and sow our seeds...I think it would be wrong for the church to condemn people who have followed their instincts," said Bishop of Edinburgh Richard Holloway in a speech on sex and Christianity. More conservative bishops leapt to condemn Holloway, who has also drawn heat for suggesting that legalizing drugs and prostitution could curb the spread of AIDS. (Dave comments: in biblical times this built in sex drive for sexual variety was recognized for men who could have as many wives and concubines as they could afford and this was never spoken against. Today women simply the have the same freedom of sexual expression and variety as men have always had).

Sexual Pleasure Sharing Much More Than Intercourse

Often we fear our sexuality based on society pressures, religion or past unpleasant experiences. Therefore, we are often unable to experience the beauty of sexual pleasure sharing. When we think of sex, we usually only think of intercourse.

Whole body sexuality can be even more loving and intimate with no concern about disease. For women, intercourse is often not the best way for maximum pleasure, but many men do not know how to give a woman maximum pleasure. Tantra sex techniques can also be very intimate and wonderful. Having our naked bodies caressed all over and warmly held with love and affection is as vital to our emotions as eating and drinking is to our health.

Maximum sexual pleasuring techniques are a learned skill. Only the very basics come naturally which are not always the most enjoyable. But when we have been taught that sex is so dirty that we must save it for marriage, and then only have one partner, how do we learn maximum pleasure sharing? Sexual pleasure sharing is learned just as walking and talking is learned, by experience and practice.

We do not "give ourselves away" by sharing sexually. When we share, we each gain more, the knowledge we share is not reduced but expanded through reaction and sharing with others. Similarly in sexual sharing we don't save it, we share it and grow and find more and more meaningful experiences. If at some point an exclusive relationship is desired, such as in marriage, sexual pleasure in that relationship will be enhanced by previous experimentation and experiences with a selective but wider range of trusted intimate friends.

Women's More Equal Sex is Better Sex

Loving open Americans sex lives are better than ever. There's been a phenomenal change in women's sexuality and, therefore, their partners. Women are saying "I'm an equal partner in bed. I expect pleasure too." Many men like the "new" more aggressive woman, and being on the receiving end at times and are learning how to please a woman and enjoy foreplay and afterplay. Studies all show that those who can communicate about sex are the ones with the best sex lives. We need to practice more oral sex - opening our mouths and discussing what we enjoy the most or what we want to try.

Changing Views Of Sexuality - Leads To A Better Society

It seems obvious with all its sexual repression the United States is not a sexually healthy society. Sexuality is also a very important issue in determining the happiness of people in other areas. Sexual repression leads to abuse, frustration and psychological damage. In a society full of tease and titillation, but little meaningful sexuality (sex is so dirty have to save it for marriage and then suppose to be experts with no experience), all sort of bad things happen out of sexual frustration.

Our society needs to learn how to discuss sexuality openly if we are going to start healing our unhealthy sexuality and sexual abuse. This is especially important to women, many of who are fed up with all the men whose only thought of sexually is thrusting genital sex, while most women seek more intimacy and variety of many types of sexual stimulation. In the past (especially in biblical times) when women were more just there to serve men, this was less of a problem.

Today, women are demanding their own sexual fulfillment and experiencing a great deal of frustration from men having no idea how to maximize the sexual pleasure of a woman. Responsible Non-monogamy allows men to be trained by different women in different sexual techniques and for women to enjoy different techniques from different men. Together, we can all learn and grow in our knowledge of giving and receiving sexual pleasure as part of loving caring, other pleasure centered relationships.

The number of sex-positive people is rapidly growing in the United States. More and more people are becoming willing to be open and admit their needs, desires, and frustrations. Many sex-positive groups are leading workshops and are open to leaning and experimentation. Often it's women that have become the prime activists in this area since they are demanding their own sexual fulfillment.

The biggest blocks to a more healthy sexual society is the traditional religious beliefs based on mistranslated and misunderstood biblical texts that have no relevance to today's loving responsible non-monogamous relationships. What is particularly ironic is the ignorance of many Christians about the biblical culture, where adultery was only wrong for a married woman and men could have as many wives and concubines (breeders) as they wished. In many ways biblical sexuality was far more positive but was male dominated. Wives and children were simply the property of their husbands/fathers. Today's responsible non-monogamous relationships can be a much better example of Christ's love than the false teachings of traditional Christianity.

The Christian Moral View

The religious view of a society has a profound impact on the emotional health of its people and on the quality of their interpersonal relationships.

A major distinction between Eastern and Western religious views is in regard to sexuality. From the East we have the wonderful integration of sexuality and spirit as seen in Tantra and other teachings that result in much more sexual fulfillment than in Western culture. In the West, God is viewed as omnipotent, intolerant, who rules over all (especially women) with the ideal of woman being a virgin insisting on strict moral obedience (often the results of mistranslated scriptures) where sex is somehow dirty and the opposite of spirituality. This Western view is a recipe for endless hostility and conflict between the sexes. The irony is for those that look more seriously at scripture to understand what it really was saying in the culture it was written, we understand the beliefs are based on false tradition rather than an accurate reflection of scripture.

This sex-negative Christian moral view, although in a long slow decline, is going to be with us for a long time in the West and continues to influence our laws, our perceptions of one another, and the character or our personal lives. Its result is conflict, estrangement, and hostility between the sexes. In earlier times women were not able to be empowered due to their economic dependence on men and their encumbrance with the care of children. But today, with effective birth control and the growing economic independence of women, women are taking the lead in demanding more sexually empowering honest discussion and exposure of the false teachings of Western culture.

Feminism's Fight For A Sex-Positive Society

Feminism today is the fight to gain women's equality in all aspects of life including the right to sexual equality and pleasure by having the right to make their own decisions over their sexuality. They fight thousands of years of a male dominated culture. "Since women have been used as sexual icons for so many years without being the primary receivers of sexual pleasure, gaining control of women's sexuality and educating women about their sexual pleasure potential is a crucial feminist issue," says Devra Schwartz, owner of Passionate Living, which use to be a magazine promoting sex-positive attitudes and non-monogamy as a possible better choice for women.

GOOD GROUPS AND PUBLICATIONS

Swinging

We have a very good relationship with The Lifestyles Organization, have presented at Lifestyle conventions, and get many referrals from them, especially regarding Christian issues. We also present at many other swing conventions. We totally support swinging, even though it is not our primary interest. In addition to our extensive swinging section of our web site, and the many links we have, we primarily refer you to The Lifestyles Organization at http://www.Playcouples.com.

NASCA - North American Swing Club Assn is part of The Lifestyles Organization. They will send any COUPLE on request their information by calling them at 714-821-9953. They have a national directory of clubs for $10 and Publish Emerge Playcouple Newsletter for members and sponsor annual Lifestyles Convention with over 3000 attendees from all over the world celebrating erotic life with great workshops, discussions and erotic activities to enhance ones love life. Liberated Christians did a presentation at the 1994 and 1995 Lifestyles Convention, "Swinging-Not a Biblical Conflict" that received a very positive response. Audio or video tape available of both by calling NASCA.

Polyamory
In addition to our workshops, and vast materials on web site, we highly recommend publications of Loving More, especially:

BRAND NEW! The New Love Without Limits by Dr. Deborah Anapol. This book is "must have" reading for anyone interested in a polyamous lifestyle. Deborah and Loving More teamed up to reprint her original classic, now with updated
chapters, resources, and new material combined with the best of the original book. Perhaps the most widely read book on polyamory ever and certainly one of the best.

Loving More-The Polyfidelity Primer by Ryam Nearing Ryam's classic "how to" on group marriage and poly relationships in general. Focused primarily on polyfidelity with many good tips, worksheets, and advice on how to start a
local group. Very good definitions of different styles of poly relationships.

Both books as well as Loving More Magazine and much more can be found at http://www.lovemore.com

The Erotic Silence of the American Wife by Dalma Heyn Signet Books, 1992. This national bestseller is now available in paperback about monogamy as a patriarchal, misogynist institution more women are rejecting. More and more women are being empowered to not sell their sexuality out but that women's pleasure is valid and important. Many women are finding that polyfidelity relationships enhances their lives by allowing more pleasure, intimacy and companionship once they overcome the conditioning and guilt of a male dominated culture that prevent them from openly seeking this enhancement.

Liberated Christians
PO Box 55045, Phoenix Az 85078-5045
Promoting Intimacy and Other-Centered Sexuality

Reference: http://www.libchrist.com/poly/responon.html

How Sex Was Made A Sin

A huge number of other Christians who now are enjoying more open relationships, more living in Christ's love. But many have struggled with exactly the same issues that many who visit our site are concerned about. Centuries of indoctrination by traditional Christian teachings are hard to overcome. But the sex negative traditions clearly have no biblical basis.

Jews (the group out of which Jesus preached) do not have the same sexual hang ups that today's traditional Christians (vs Biblical) have. They view sex in a much more wholesome way than most Christians. Christians borrow their negative view of sex from the Greeks and also from St. Augustine who over-reacted to his previous sexual progligacy with his ascetic responses that mad sex totally evil even when it was used in marriage for sexual reasons. It was only valid if it was for the purpose of procreation. Now, if that is the only use you make of sex then you are in sympathy with St. Augustine. That is a sorry place to put your loyalty.

Regarding Christ, I believe that his silence indicates a wholesome acceptance of Jewish openness about the subject. Christians(?) are too often in tune with negativism and not open to honesty about their own sexuality and, as a result, so many of them end up in deviancy. Sex is not a disease. It is a gift from God. That does not mean that we use it carelessly. Many traditional Christians have a lot to work out on a psychological level sexual issues, before they can engage in dialogue with honest, searching Christians eager to find solutions to the errors created by organized religious fanatics.

The Emperor Constantine (354-430 A.D.) was perhaps the world's most important convert to the new religion of Christianity. Christianity was perhaps the only thing left to try to hold the Roman Empire together. While the political empire fell in the next century, the Church stepped in as the new central authority. Threats of burning in hell were even more effective than the army for controlling large and diverse populations.

Augustine was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception! This reflects the need at the time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high and the economic and political structures were based on families. Likewise, clerical celibacy was in part shaped by fear that offspring would fight over Church property.

Thanks to widespread illiteracy - or apathy -whatever the Church said was now law. Intercourse was no longer natural and good; sex was dirty and only for procreation. Celibacy was the new standard for the clergy. And it was a great money maker! If you sinned by enjoying sex, you must come to the Church for repentance, which required a donation to demonstrate your faith. What a perfect way for the Church to raise capital; make everyone a sinner because of their innate sexual desires and then offer to absolve them for a sizeable donation.

The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus. It instead came from later Christians whose main interest was the control of the masses. It is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when and where it came from - and put it in perspective in present time and circumstances.

Making polygamy a "sin" was a slow process. It was even common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said "when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one." Later, with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway).

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality (multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times), but it was about MONEY!

Polygyny (many wives for 1 man) was the norm due to the male-dominated society and the fact a man's status was determined by the number of children he fathered. Today, women should enjoy equal rights and sex can be for pleasure and an expression of sincere love. This makes polyamory a more equal and loving lovestyle.

For much more detailed historic information on how sex became a sin see:
http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm in addition to the overall site, http://www.patriarchywebsite.com which has a great deal of historical sexual information especially related to Jews.

The Liberated Christian Sexual Ethic

We affirm that our sexuality is a natural gift from God. It should not be artificially restricted by regulation. God honors a free sexual expression that seeks the enjoyment and good of the each person, and the glory to God as He participates with us in this glorious aspect of living and loving others, ourselves and God. In our scriptural understanding, a New Testament biblical argument cannot be made against most cases of consensual sexual pleasure sharing, whether premarital, marital, or postmarital.

Negative cases can be made only if the parties involved are not functioning within Christian love guidelines, but are rather using one another for their own selfish gratification or are doing harm, physical or psychological, to their sexual partners or to other parties who are involved. Among the sexual practices which would be harmful would be the careless disregard for sexually transmitted diseases or contraceptive protection.

reference: http://www.libchrist.com/bible/howsexsin.html

What Men Really Want In Modern Relationships
Tips on what's really on men's minds when it comes to love and sex

Women often say that men confuse them and that they are unsure what a man is really looking for. They have tried to please them in the past and it hasn't worked so no, the man can concentrate on pleasing them or leave. If the media is to be believed, many women don't care what a man is looking for anymore because they have been empowered by their own sexuality and are comfortable in their new role as sexually liberated career woman in charge of their own destiny. In which case, as long as the man wants them, that is fine.

It doesn't matter whether that view is actually true or not. What is true is that the modern man is increasingly struggling to find his place in the world. The Armed Forces and Space programs quite rightly have very highly qualified career women working in their departments and in most aspects of industry, women excel. The old male bastions are crumbling and with them their innate self respect as well as their understanding of how they should act and what they desire.

Any woman reading this may say well it's a problem for men and they should deal with it. Absolutely, but you cannot expect miracles instantly. Generations of history dictating a man's role and function cannot be decided and altered in the space of 20 years without some fallout. Few can argue against the excitement felt by women as their empowerment continues but at the same time, one must expect issues to coincide with this. And one of those as I said is the question of understanding what the modern man is looking for.

Men have started to evolve and are starting to grasp the fact that their role may not be as it once was. "Starting" is the operative word because this does not mean that there aren't large swathes of the world where men insist on being the breadwinner and women should still remain at home rearing children. It is going to take a long time to change the world. However in our western cities a change is in full swing. Men know that to find a mate they are going to have to work harder than ever before and they are aware that women call the shots far more than ever before. But this doesn't essentially change what a man is looking for.
Okay so what is a man seeking?

    •    First of all a man is seeking a love-interest. This may surprise many women but men like to love and they like being loved in return. The problem is that many women come across as impassioned and cold. It is not easy to find a loving woman and it is very noticeable how many men try and hang on when they think they have found their Miss Right.

    •    Men are seeking a woman who is attractive to them. Women may despair that men can be so shallow and that looks could matter so much but be careful. Men aren't necessarily looking for a catwalk model and many men don't like women who weigh 80lbs. But men do want a woman who takes pride in their appearance (though not excessively). Men are proud of having a girlfriend who looks good and I don't believe any man who says otherwise.

    •    Men are looking for a trustworthy girl, someone they can have faith in and someone who will be there for them. This may sound like an odd thing to say, but the fact is, some women are not trustworthy and many are not faithful either. So many in fact that men are increasingly wary. That kiss at a  Christmas party may not count, or the flirtatious behavior with the gorgeous barman and in fact its all great fun and part of a woman's character. But reverse the situation and as a woman, you hate him doing the same. A man can never forgive a woman being unfaithful and so he is looking for someone who he really does trust.

    •    Men want to make a home eventually and are looking for a woman who will be a willing sharer in home life. Women with a sociable lifestyle are attractive because they can be relied upon to keep the social diary running in a long term relationship.

    •    Men are seeking women who are feminine gentle and kind because deep down the qualities that make a woman a great mother are an attraction in themselves. I am not suggesting that the man himself needs mothering, though some do, it is more the point that men seek the attributes in women that point to someone who would make a great mother to future offspring.

    •    Men want women with a great sense of humor. Women often come across as uptight or too bothered by too many small details. You will sometimes hear mention of a girl who is 'one of the boys'. What this means is that she is able to fit in with their humor and is sociable and fun to be with. Such women are extremely attractive to many men. Men want to have a good time and relax when not working and so their ideal partners are women who are able to do the same.

    •    Men are looking for women who retain their femininity and and are caring and kind. In recent years, aping men may be a female fashion statement, but it doesn't make them attractive. Whilst every woman in the world burps and farts and has the right to drink pints of beer, it doesn't necessarily attract them to the opposite sex. Women can get angry and say well men will just have to get used to it, but the issue is that they don't. They can just choose not to go for women who act in the same way as their drinking buddies.

    •    Men want someone who is supportive. Many women are quick to criticize men in their behavior, career and set about trying to alter them and mould them. This is a crucial mistake. Men can be manipulated yes, but they see their partnerships as support systems. The best relationships work both ways in terms of support. Where a woman is not able or willing to give that support and is too quick to criticize then she may lose her man.

    •    Men don't like angry women who shout. They want a woman who can debate and converse and is able to discuss. Communication is king. A fiery passionate temperament may have made you interesting and challenging on day one. But by day 500 it holds no glory whatsoever.

    •    Men love a challenging woman, someone who keeps them on their toes. Men are generally lazy in relationships once they feel they're in secure territory. When a man is challenged so he does something about it. If you want to keep your man interested, keep him challenged.

    •    Men are generally more reserved about sex than women. This is my experience is a fact. Men know what they like in bed and tend to stick to it. The adventurous sexual appetite in most men isn't there even if they are convinced it is. Men in reality are quite conservative. Sexually adventurous has nothing to do with having lots of partners and more to do with the things they will try with the same partner. In most test cases I have conducted, it is the man who looks for a quiet time in the bedroom and the woman who ultimately becomes bored.

    •    Men want a woman who will commit to them. Though increasingly this is hard to find, it doesn't take away the wish. Men want a girlfriend who they can share with and trust and be open with. Commitment is not a one way street and therefore men are struggling to find the levels of commitment they found previously. But the need is still there.

    •    Men don't want to be alone.

 
This column can easily fire a great debate. The fact is, a modern man is seeking a reliable, sexy, single girl with whom he can have a long term relationship with. He wants to have fun, share his life and ultimately settle down. There are a few long term bachelors but not that many. The problem guys have is that the world has changed. They don't necessarily want to have children and settle down straight away, but it will come. They do seek self-respect even if they are not the primary breadwinner and they seek respect from their partner.

While women become increasingly strong in their new roles in society, it is worth remembering that it takes, and always will take, two to tango.

READ MORE  :  http://www.topdatingtips.com/what-men-want.htm

The allure of open relationships


Seedy or special? We look into the growing phenomenon of open relationships.


Many men went into a bit of frenzy when Angelina Jolie told a German magazine that, "I doubt that fidelity is absolutely essential for a relationship."

First off, it means we've all still got a chance with the world's sexiest woman, Brad or no Brad. And failing that, it also means that some women really are willing to consider the possibility of an open relationship.


In a nutshell, an open relationship means having one significant other, but still being able to sleep with other women. The downside is that, if you demand that freedom, your significant other has the right to demand it too.


So could you handle an open relationship? We talked to the experts to get the low-down. Here's what to expect.


Better to be open than unfaithful
If you don't think open relationships are normal or natural, consider this. According to research, 95% of couples value monogamy, but a study by Washington State University found that, among their subjects, 27% of men and 18% of women had been unfaithful during their last relationship. Other studies show a much narrower gap between male and female infidelity.


What's more, statistics show that 10% of children in Britain are being brought up by men who think they're the biological father - but aren't.

Also Read: How to make women laugh and why you should
Also Read: Seven steps to communicating with your partner well
Also Read: Men: conversations you need to have with your partner now 
Also Read: How to make a woman fall for you
Also Read: Man skills to make women swoon
In other words, seedy on-the-side sex is pretty rife anyway, so wouldn't it be better - at least for some couples - to be honest about their desires and agree to an open relationship?


It's natural
Not only might it be honest, some experts also believe it's more natural. For a start, humans are mammals, and the vast majority of mammals are not monogamous.


In western civilisation, monogamy is the relationship norm. But that doesn't make it natural. Throughout history most humans have been polygamous. Most of that time, it means men have married multiple women.


According to evolutionary biologist Robin Baker, "it's nurture, not nature, that makes us monogamous." Many of us wouldn't naturally settle for one lifelong sexual partner, but our cultural traditions teach us that it's the right thing to do.


Some experts also think that the idea of monogamy evolved at a time when humans had far lower life expectancy than we do now. In the pre-industrial past, marriages would only last a decade or so before death did us part. Could it be that we're simply not meant to be exclusively with the same partner for 30, 40 or 50 years?


In his book The Evolution of Human Sexuality, first published in 1979, Donald Symons writes that, "the desire for [sexual] variety is virtually impossible to satisfy." By going for an open relationship, at least you might be giving yourself a chance.

But is it natural for women?
So if it's natural for men to want a varied sex life, what about women? Traditional theory has it that women value monogamy, to ensure there's a man around to bring home the bacon while the kids are young.


Also Read: Men: easy ways to get a date 
Also Read: Men: master the art of persuasion 
Also Read: The pros and cons of internet dating
Also Read: Men: how to play hard to get (and why it works)

But even that theory has been upset by more recent revelations from the animal kingdom. Many bird species were once considered the poster animals for monogamy, staying faithful to one partner season after season.


But it turns out not to be true. In birds, as in humans, many males are providing for chicks that aren't their own. The females may be socially monogamous - they stick with the same male and share the same territory - but they're nipping off for surreptitious quickies with any passing male.

Birds aren't people, but studies now suggest that women are almost as likely to cheat as men, suggesting that though many women might want a good provider at home, they may also crave sexual variety on the side.


In evolutionary terms, it could be that women, like birds, take multiple lovers for the sake of their yet-to-be conceived children. In effect, they make the sperm of several males fight it out, with the strongest reaching the egg first. That's not consciously what women are doing in 2011, of course, but it could provide an explanation for some women's urge for sexual variety, even within a committed relationship.

Given that, could open relationships be the way forward for us all?


So why don't we all do it?
From all that, an obvious question is why aren't more of us opting for open relationships? But then, perhaps more of us are. According to Tristan Taormino, the author of Opening Up: A Guide to Creating and Sustaining Open Relationships, "there are far more open relationships than you might think."

But monogamy is still the norm, aimed for, if not always achieved, by the vast majority of us. Over 2,000 years of cultural indoctrination may help to explain that. We've been told for centuries by powerful figures that monogamy is the only acceptable kind of relationship. It's no surprise that the message has stuck.

Also Read: Easy ways to attract women
Also Read: Keys to dating success
Also Read: Master the lost art of romance
Also Read: Mistakes men make at the start of a relationship



Still, there must be a reason monogamy, rather than polygamy, is preached from the pulpits, and indeed it does have its advantages. Largely, it turns out, for men.


Quite simply, men have something fundamental to gain from monogamy that women don't. Only by committing to one sexual partner (or more accurately, getting one partner to commit to them) can men be reasonably certain the offspring they are providing for are really their own.

It could be why men have such a highly developed sense of jealously, and indeed the green-eyed monster is one reason open relationships can be such hard work, says Tristan Taormino, who admits to "struggling with jealousy" in her own open relationship.

Yes, you might get the satisfaction of playing away from home with other women, but you're also stuck at home twiddling your thumbs as your partner plays away with other men.


An open relationship is hard to find
Which all adds to the feeling that, while many of us might fantasise about open relationships, far fewer actively seek them out. Not only do you have to persuade one woman - your partner - to accept a non-exclusive sexual arrangement, you then have to persuade another.

On top of that, you have to accept the fact that your partner will do the same, and get over it. Tristan Taormino says this is possible, but hard.

It may be possible for some, but certainly not for everyone. For many of us, an open relationship may be the fantasy that should stay in the box. It's certainly an alluring prospect, and monogamy may not be our natural state, but how many of us could really handle the alternative?


Read More: What women really want from men
Read More: Is she a fling or the real thing?
Read More: Why men have a type
Read More: 10 reasons men should embrace coupledom
Read More: Dating ideas sure to impress her

 By: Hugh wilson

READ MORE :  http://www.arabia.msn.com/Lifestyle/Him/mh/2011/august/openrelationships.aspx

The Swing Community: A Profile From Sexuality.org

Introduction

This article covers the emergence and growth of organized recreational sex amongst mixed-gender couples as a social activity.

The most frequently-used term for this community is the "swing," "swinging," or "swinger's" community. In the 1980's, Dr. Robert McGinley1 began promoting the use of "lifestyles" in place of "swing," and "playcouples"2 in place of "swingers"; in addition to escaping media stereotypes that had built up around "swingers," he wanted a term that was inclusive of couples who participated but didn't choose to interact sexually with other couples.3 This new terminology (while certainly well-intentioned) hasn't fully caught on yet4, and in the interest of avoiding confusion I'll tend to use the older term, with no offense intended, particularly when discussing swinging's origins or when discussing books or articles that themselves use the older term.

History and Politics

Community Origins

As far as anyone knows5, swinging (as this community exists today, in the United States) had its roots amongst an elite group of U.S. Air Force fighter pilots during World War II. These men were wealthy enough to move their wives close to base, and the fact that their fatality rate was the highest of any branch of service led to an unusual social milieu in which non-monogamy between these pilots' wives and other pilots became acceptable.6 These arrangements persisted near Air Force bases throughout World War II and into the Korean War.

By the time the Korean War ended, these groups7 had spread from the bases to the nearby suburbs. The media picked up on them in 1957 and promptly dubbed the phenomenon "wife-swapping."8 Although the media didn't treat this new phenomenon respectfully, the public's response made it clear that they wanted to hear more. By 1960, there were over 20 widely-available magazines which carried "swinger" ads.9 These magazines provided a medium through which the first swinger parties could advertise themselves, and the first permanent clubs began appearing in the late 1960's.10

Organized swinging outside California was originally all "off-premise."11 This was also true for New York until the legendary on-premise club "Plato's Retreat" was founded12; in the South, Midwest, and Northwest, dances13 remained the most popular form of off-premise swinging. All of these clubs were completely independent entities and there were no national gatherings.

Dr. Robert McGinley founded the Lifestyles Organization in 1975, through which he began hosting the first national Lifestyles Conventions14 along with his first efforts to improve the public image of swinging.15 He subsequently founded the North American Swing Club Association (NASCA) in 1979, with the intent that NASCA serve as a trade and standards organization for swing club owners. The swinger's community continued to grow throughout the 1980's and 1990's16, and is currently enjoying an upsurge of interest and growth.17 Although single women are almost always welcome at today's swinging events, the degree to which single men are accepted varies from club to club. Although female bisexuality is common in the swing community, male bisexual activity is still almost non-existent at swing events. Political Struggles and Strategy The swing community won their first major political battle in 1996-199718 against the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC).19 As Gould [9] describes it, the rhetoric they used in this struggle was a textbook example of how sex-positive communities of any kind can find common ground with the public: 1.    They argued that the ABC was attempting to regulate the private sexual behavior of citizens, which made the ABC's actions everyone's concern rather than just one organization's concern. 2.    They got the ACLU and other free-speech / first-amendment advocates involved, as a result of the ABC's interest in shutting down a display of erotic art at their convention. McGinley considered this issue to be his "high ground," and recognized that many consider censorship of art or speech to be warning signs that government is on the wrong path.20 3.    They aligned themselves, at least rhetorically, with the political struggles of other sexual minorities (particularly the gay community). This framed the debate in terms more favorable to them. Swing clubs in some cities and states have faced unfair treatment from local authorities (typically via selectively enforcing zoning regulations, or passing new ordinances). Recently, this has occurred in Florida and Arizona. The Arizona case is particularly interesting, because it essentially resulted from a failure to align with other sexual minority groups. When asked why Phoenix was shutting down its five swing clubs but leaving its gay male sex club ("The Chute") in peace, a City Attorney gave the following remarkable answer [11]: The gay constituency is very vocal, and they resist what they perceive to be the government's attempt to focus specifically on places frequented by homosexuals... They consider themselves a minority group, which creates an extra layer of analysis we have to go through so we're not perceived as picking on gay people. At least on its surface, this is a compelling argument for cooperation and solidarity amongst the various elements of sex-positive culture. Media Coverage The national media has been fairly erratic on the subject of swinging, and frequently falls back on their tried-and-true approach to sex-positive culture in general (i.e. "titillate the public with it so you can increase sales, then judge it harshly so you can maintain editorial credibility.") However, Gould's recently-published book [9], the increased level of respect gained through the recent legal victories in California, and the general public's negative reaction to media coverage of the Monica Lewinksy scandal, may ultimately result in more respectful and objective media coverage of swinging. Popularity Estimates of the prevalence of swinging amongst U.S. couples range from 2%  to 15%. This is roughly consistent with McGinley's total estimate of 3,000,000. One 1974 study found a prevalence of 1.7% amongst their (regionally limited) sample, but found that 6.7% of their sample "would participate if the opportunity presented itself" [4], and a later study [20] found that 19% of males and 14% of females in their sample sometimes fantasized about group sex during intercourse.30 Prevailing Attitudes What Swingers Believe A 1985 study of over 400 swingers found its subjects "significantly more liberal than a control group of nonswingers on items dealing with areas such as divorce, premarital sex, pornography, homosexuality [emphasis mine], and abortion" [13]. This result is consistent with a much later and larger study [3], which found the swingers in its (internet-based) sample to be "less racist, less sexist, and less heterosexist than the general population."31 A poll taken at the Lifestyles 1996 Convention found that 92% of the respondents (presumably, almost all of whom were active in the lifestyle) believed that swingers "should" be using condoms [9]. This is consistent with a study completed four years earlier (see [13]) which found that 62% of the swingers in its sample had changed their behavior as a result of AIDS.

Why Do People Like Swinging? Here are some of the reasons that swingers have mentioned in surveys (paraphrased, in some cases) [13]:

• Variety of sexual partners and experiences
• Pleasure and excitement
• Increased social life
• Watching others so as to learn new techniques for your spouse
• Overcoming sexual inhibitions
• "Recapturing one's youth"
• Feeling reassured that you're still attractive and desirable
• Increasing mutual attraction and love within the marriage32

Here are some other reasons (paraphrased) that I have heard swingers mention:

• It's an opportunity to re-create that "first date" feeling of anticipation and excitement, in a safe way that won't harm your marriage, and to exercise social skills (e.g. flirting) that you may not have used in along time.
• It's human nature to appreciate someone even more if you notice other people desiring them, which may explain why swinging makes me feel even more attracted to my partner.
• Although this may vary slightly from club to club, I've found the swinging community to be quite accepting of a wide variety of body types, sizes, ages, and shapes.
• It's an opportunity to dress sexy or [in the case of on-premise parties] to go completely nude.
• It's an opportunity for people with healthy sex drives to have that aspect of themselves appreciated rather than snickered about.
• It's an opportunity to socialize and form friendships amongst people who are comfortable talking about sex openly.

Etiquette and Tips "The Big Secret" Swinging is primarily a social activity, and the ordinary social customs of being courteous, initiating conversation, getting to know people, and letting trusted acquaintances become friends are no different from any other walk of life. Put another way, it's your ability to form friendships with couples, as a couple, that will ultimately determine the quality of your experience in the swing community. What Do People Usually Wear?

• At off-premise events such as dances, it's common for people to dress up or wear fairly sexy clothing.
• Dress at on-premise events tends to be more casual, since nudity is a common outcome of the evening for many. It's a good idea to bring a robe or kimono so you don't have to put all your clothes back on after getting undressed. It's also good to avoid small or expensive jewelry that might get lost.
• If it's a theme party, then try to follow the theme.

Bisexuality in the Swing Community Male Bisexuality I would like to begin by saying this: in the time I have spent in the swing community, I have never heard so much as one comment that I would characterize as homophobic. David Schisgall, when asked about homophobia at the Seattle premiere of The Lifestyle: Swinging in America, reported exactly the same thing [19]. Furthermore, as was noted earlier, several independent studies have found swingers to be less homophobic than the general population. However, when asked about the reason for the utter lack of male bisexual activity at swing parties,36 Schisgall's best explanation was that, rather than being the result of overt homophobia, it was simply "not part of the culture."37 My personal assessment is similar. Nevertheless, as was suggested by the City Attorney's comments following Phoenix's decision to close all of its swing clubs, as well as by the positive response Dr. McGinley received when arguing that the LSO's struggle against the California ABC was similar to the struggle for gay liberation, there may be tremendous value in the swing community being able to more systematically align themselves with other sexual minorities. If NASCA took a sexual orientation anti-discrimination stance similar to their stance against racism, they might create a prime opportunity to begin forging productive new alliances. Female Bisexuality In 1984, Dr. Joan Dixon [6] published some fascinating research on female bisexuality within the swing community. Summarizing: 1.    She noted that the prevalence of sexual activity between females in the swing community is extraordinarily high.38 2.    She assembled (apparently without difficulty) a sample of 50 women for her study, all of whom had their first experience with female-female sex in the swing community after age 30, and none of whom even fantasized about women before these first experiences. 3.    Her study found that "the generally positive reactions of these subjects to their first sexual experience with other females after a lifetime of strict heterosexuality ... progressed through repeated experience to an overwhelming general rating of excellent," that the "percentage of those whose masturbatory fantasies at times included other females as erotic sex objects rose from 4.5% to 61%," and that every one of the women in her study now self-identified as bisexual. This suggests the swing community might be a stunning example of the impact "social facilitation" can have on adult sexual behavior, preference, and identity. Clubs, Conferences, and Resources An up-to-date directory of swing clubs can be found on the NASCA web site at www.nasca.com. If there isn't a NASCA-affiliated club in your area, then you'll probably want to search for independent clubs.39 More information on the annual Lifestyles Conventions is available at www.lifestyles.org Information on a brand new organization, the "Trade Association for Lifestyle Organizations," is available at www.theila.org. In contrast to NASCA, which at this point in time largely focuses on producing their annual swing club directories, TAFLO intends to engage in media outreach, coordinate pro-lifestyle political activism, and offer support and services to swing club owners. If you're interested in swinging and want to learn more, then you should read Gould's The Lifestyle: A Look at the Erotic Rites of Swingers [9] as well as Easton and Liszt's The Ethical Slut [7], and finish by watching the documentary The Lifestyle: Swinging in America [14]. The ACLU came to the aid of the Lifestyles Organization during their 1996-1997 struggle, and can be considered an ally on many swing community issues; more information on joining the ACLU is available at www.aclu.org

Bibliography Anapol, Deborah (1997). Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits. San Rafael, CA: Intinet Resource Center. Bean, Joseph (2001). Lecture in Seattle on March 25. Bergstrand, Curtis, and Jennifer B. Williams (2000). "Today's alternate marriage styles: The case of swingers." The Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm Cole, Charles L., and Graham B. Spaniard (1974). "Comarital mate-sharing and family stability." The Journal of Sex Research, 10 (1): 21-31. Defense Security Service (2000). "Information about specific sexual practices." Adjudicative Desk Reference, http://www.dss.mil/nf/adr/sexbeh/sexT2.htm Dixon, Joan K. (1984). "The commencement of bisexual activity in swinging married women over age thirty." The Journal of Sex Research, 20 (1): 71-90. Easton, Dossie, and Catherine A. Liszt (1998). The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities. Emeryville, CA: Greenery Press. Gilmartin, Brian G. (1978). The Gilmartin Report. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel. Gould, Terry (2000). The Lifestyle: A Look at the Erotic Rites of Swingers. Westport, CT: Firefly Books. Greenberg, Jerrold S., Clint E. Bruess, and Debra W. Haffner (2000). Exploring the Dimensions of Human Sexuality. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Klein, Marty (2000). "Pheonix orgies-gay only, please." Sexual Intelligence, Issue 2. http://www.sexed.org/newsletters/issue02.html Jenks, Richard J. (1985). "Swinging: A replication and test of a theory." The Journal of Sex Research, 21 (2): 199-205. Jenks, Richard J. (1998). "Swinging: A review of the literature." Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27 (5): 507-521. The Lifestyle: Swinging in America (1999). Directed by David Schisgall. Fox Lorber Films. DVD. Michael, Robert T., John H. Gagnon, Edward O. Laumann, and Gina Kolata (1995). Sex in America: A Definitive Survey. New York: Warner Books [also known as the National Health and Social Life Survey-please see http://www.norc.org for more information]. NASCA International (2000). International Directory: Swing Clubs, Publications & Events. Buena Park, CA: LSO, Ltd.

Queen, Carol (1995). Exhibitionism for the Shy. San Francisco, CA: Down There Press. Reinisch, June M. (1990). The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex: What You Must Know to be Sexually Literate. New York: St. Martin's Press. Schisgall, David (1999). Discussion with the audience following the Seattle premiere of his documentary The Lifestyle: Swinging in America at the 1999 Seattle International Film Festival on May 24. Sue, David (1979). "Erotic fantasies of college students during coitus." The Journal of Sex Research, 15 (4): 299-305. Weitzman, Geri D. (1999). "What psychology professionals should know about polyamory: The lifestyles and mental health concerns of polyamorous individuals." http://www.polyamory.org/~joe/polypaper.htm

SOCIAL ORIGINS OF SWINGING by Edgar W. Butler, Ph.D. Excerpted and edited from Dr. Butler's book, Traditional Marriages and Emerging Alternatives, Harper & Row, 1979. (Courtesy of NASCA) Reference For: SOCIAL ORIGINS OF SWINGING Dealing with Jealousy One especially important mechanism tor overcoming jealousy in swinging situations, is individuation. Couples who participate in swinging typically treat individuals as individuals rather than as a social category, including their spouses. Each person is seen as a unique individual. This decreases jealousy by stressing the basic nature of people. In the individuation process, attitudes and behavior are modified, and swinging couples report, rather consistently, that they communicate better than they did before swinging, and treat each other much more as individuals. They say that swinging has recreated romantic feelings they once had for each other -- expressed concretely in an increase in both sexual satisfaction and frequency of sexual intercourse. This is especially experienced by older couples. There are two primary stages in swinging. In the first, the curiosity stage, the couple learns how to behave and swing with others. While many females are rather reluctant to get involved in swinging, once they do, they accept initial experiences more successfully than males. Women are generally either enthusiastic converts or completely turned off by the experience. Generally, swingers are relatively nonselective when they first become involved. Following the curiosity stage, there is relative selectivity, characterized by increasing individuation of self and others. In the individuation process of the second stage, a woman becomes selective because she no longer needs to prove she is desired or can satisfy other men. In order to make the experience meaningful, she arrives at a point where she feels that she must refuse the advances of many men. She learns to define her preferences more clearly and to learn to act on these preferences. This is an experience that many women never have because they rely on their husbands to make decisions in social situations. In short. a woman learns to individuate both herself and others in the second stage of swinging (Palson and Palson, 1972:35). Men, similarly, learn from swinging. Once a swinger realizes that his physical responses may very well be due to elements that inhere to the individual relationship rather than to innate sexual inadequacy, he has arrived at a very different conception of sexual relationships. He is better able to see women as human beings to whom he may be attracted and as personalities rather than as objects to be exploited for their sexual potential. In our terms, he can now more successfully individuate relationships with women (Palson and Palson, 1972:35). Contrary to popular belief, swinging ordinarily does not result in jealousy or marital breakups; it may succeed in solidifying marriages by reromanticizing them and thereby making them tolerable and perhaps even enjoyable. One reason for marital happiness among swingers may be that swinging is an activity both spouses do together -- a unique pattern compared with other types of extramarital sex. Most people who continue to participate in swinging believe that such comarital sex embellishes and enriches marriages in all areas, especially in the erotic sector. While most swingers report that it makes a good marriage better, swinging evidently cannot very often save a poor marriage. Some swingers feel that a weak marriage probably will not survive swinging and that perhaps in such cases couples shouldn't swing. A very strong marriage will survive swinging -- but it a marriage is strong, why the need to swing? One male swinger, who had had exclusive sexual relations with a spouse for many years responded as follows during an interview I conducted: You get to wondering year after year a little bit more about if you could possibly make it with another gal: what would it be like; you want a little bit of variety; you don't love your partner any less but you want something a little bit ditterent. Just the newness of it, the experience with another person is very electritying. It charges you up. It gives you something that you just can't get from someone that you know very, very well even though you may love them dearly. You just can't it under those circumstances. With swinging you have the opportunity to meet other people. You go with someone and have a sexual experience with someone else and no one thinks the less of you for it.

Some think "Oh, horror, that's supposed to be terrible." Well it isn't terrible and it you're free enough to allow your partner to have the same freedom, then this is fine. It used to be taken for granted that the man could go out and get himself a gal here and there and not too much flap came from this; but, if the woman did it -- 'Oh, " again, "that's terrible and horrible." I can't accept that as being horrible and neither can my wife accept it as being horrible. As far as we're concerned, it is a good way to charge yourself up once in a while and get yourself an experience that you just can't get any other way. Your experiences with someone else enhance your own sexual experiences with your own partner. There are just some things you can't do with your own, you have to get them from outside sources. Most swingers believe that swinging is not for all married couples. They do believe that swinging is better than sneaking around corners and lying to the partner about an outside relationship. Most agree with the statement "I think if two people agree on sex other than with their partners, then swinging perhaps is for them." To most swingers sex is a recreation which also satisfies a bodily hunger. One female swinger I interviewed responded as follows to the question of why she got involved in swinging: As far as being asked why have you married if you're going to get into swinging. I have a lot more emotional aspects of life other than just sex. Sex is just one part of it. I have many years invested in building a complete and total relationship with my husband. Sex, like I say, is just one facet of it and it's been exclusive where as all my other relationships with people have not been exclusive. I'm able to talk to people. I'm able to dance with people, with all these things then why can't I have sex with them ? It doesn't have anything to do with the exclusive relationship I have with my partner, who happens to be my husband. This is my choice and it's the total, exclusive relationship that I want to keep and want to have and I don't want to get rid of; yet. I do have needs to have sexual fulfillment that I can't get from just one type of person. One person can't satisty all my needs, and I can't satisfy all of anybody else's needs. As far as I can see, that's impossible. Swingers systematically report that they find it very difficult to go to what they call "straight" parties where they end up playing the couples' game, flirtation games, and other kinds of games. Most of them believe that at swinging parties one does not have to play games, put up the couple front or flirt: one is able to get down to the basics of life and have sex with one another it it is mutually desirable. Reasons for Swinging It is generally felt that you can divide swingers into those who participate for recreational and those who participate for utopian reasons. Recreational swingers see swinging as a social activity much like bowling, playing tennis and cards. Utopian swingers have a general philosophy of communitarianism and wish to share not only sex but all other aspects of life with their fellow participants. At this time there are relatively few scientific data that indiciate what long-term effect swinging actually has on marriages. Nevertheless there is a general belief among swingers that swinging has a positive effect upon a marriage. They believe that sexual fidelity is harmful and breeds jealousy and a feeling of ownership between a husband and wife. According to them swinging does away with jealousy and helps each mate see the other as an individual and not as a possession. Another reason for participating in swinging is boredom with marital sex. Swingers feel that it is impossible tor one person to satisfy another sexually over an extended period of time. Swinging is seen as a method of adding new excitement to the marriage, perhaps even salvaging it. Most swingers know couples who have tried to salvage a bad marriage by swinging, but they augue that this generally has not been very successful. Most swingers believe that swinging alone cannot save a bad marriage. They do believe that it can strengthen a good marriage. There may be deeper psychological reasons for swinging. It is believed that men may need to translate early sexual fantasies into reality and that women may be fulfilling social-romantic needs. Some believe that because of the marginality of the new middle class, they seek experiences with others in order to feel they belong. They participate in swinging to develop social ties and to satisty the need tor sexual fiulfillment that is a result of their restrictive middle-class backgrounds. Swinging gives them an opportunity to do both without disrupting their general lifestyle. All reasons, whether social, psychological, or sociological, are at the present time only speculation. One could easily conclude that the reasons for participating in swinging are as varied as swingers themselves. Jealousy In Swinging Generally, swingers do not show jealousy on the surface. Most swingers argue that this is because by going to parties together and leaving together, they realize their commitment to each other as a couple. Thus, they do not feel threatened because the other partner has gone into another room to have sexual relations with another individual. One such swinger said, "We both know that each of us have experiences with other people and, yet, we come back to each other because we want to be together" They feel that this gives you a feeling of security that you never had before because you feel and know that the partner is coming back to you even though they have had a sexual relationship with someone else. They feel that this builds up selfconfidence and security. For a couple to engage in swinging, they must throw off the belief that having sexual relations outside of marriage is improper; they must break the shackles of the double standard. That is, the wife will be having sexual relations with other males much as the male may have had sexual relations outside the marriage with another partner previously In an interview with me, one woman swinger reported: I always felt perhaps I didn't have a normal response, because I was never jealous .To me, it was always a compliment when my husband would have a good relationship with someone. Gee, he's my partner. Its sort of a reflection of me, and the reason I feel this way is because I remember my first party where it was kind of late at night and I was sitting by the fireplace waiting for my husband and he appeared with this attractive woman and she came up to me and gave me a big hug and kiss and said "I'm so glad you came tonight. You have such a terrific husband " It made me feel, not jealous, but warm and good and great. And she's been our friend and I'm gratetul to her because I've never been jealous. Quite the opposite. That's what it's all about. Sharing a good thing. Swinging for most women changes their view of the world and sexual relations. Many argue that it has made a complete turn-around in their life from the way they viewed the world two or three years before swinging. In attempting to determine what causes some women to go into swinging, I have already noted that many are urged by their husbands and others go into swinging to carry out their fantasies. One such woman I interviewed reported that she finally acquiesced in going to a swinging party saying that she would not participate but would be willing to go and observe, have dinner and a drink or two. She said: Well, I had just enough to drink and I saw a man that I liked. I tried him and I liked him, I'm not kidding you. My whole outlook on life has changed -- it's been a scream. We have talked more, in fact, I think he wants to gag me now, and it's just beautitul. I cannot believe our life since I started participating in swinging. When we first got married he was not particularly interested in sexual relations, but now he won't leave me alone. For anyone in trouble, you should try it. He's 33 and I'm 22, and I don't know, but my sexual appetite is different from his. I mean, I guess I'm sowing my wild oats or whatever, while he just wants it once a week or sometimes twice. I was, like, climbing up the wall with sexual frustratlon -- or putting it more bluntly, I was not getting enough, and it was driving me up the wall. Since participating in swinging, as I said, all he wants to do is talk and have sexual relations with me all the time. Swingers believe that, perhaps, there is a swinging couple on every block and from this they argue that swingers are not "a bunch of freaked-out people." One woman I interviewed reported that her first evening began when her husband came home and told her they were going to a swinging party. He had seen an ad in the paper, called them up, and the swing club had said to come over for an interview. "So then he said to me, ?Okay we have an interview, we have to go right now, get your clothes on." So I thought, wait a minute, we're going to go. So I put my clothes on. I 'm going to play along with this game and here we go. We 're just going for an interview, right! Well, the interview was at 8:00 and the party was at 9:00. So here we were and the next thing I know there were all these people taking their clothes off, and I thought, my God, help me. Tom's really having a ball, that's really what he was doing, and I'm sitting here on the couch having all these mixed emotions. I'm watching these people, and it's not like any other party that I ever been to, not only in the fact that they are taking their clothes off, but they seem to be actually honest and good people, no phoney facade. In fact, I went to the bathroom and this other lady went with me and she asked me it I was having fun, I said, "Not really." She said, "Well, why aren't you balling? Haven't you seen anything you want?" I said. "No, not really." "Well," she said, "listen, you're missing the best thing in my husband, try him." Well I had just enough to drink and I tried him and I liked him. Advantages Sexual variety, sexual fulfillment, and the potential of carrying out of one's fantasies are among the advantages of swinging. Sexual excitation increases for both partners as a result of the new types of sexual experiences and there are discussions of actual sexual experiences. Women recieve a great deal of positive reinforcement; they may begin seeing themselves as more desirable. "Women uniformally report that they have bcen able to shed sexual inhibitions that they were raised with." According to many swingers, you have more of a feeling of your own "personhood;" you think of yourself as a person and not a thing. As I was told during an interview: You realize, hey, here I am -- I don't have to do all this garbage, and say all those horrible things that I never used to be able to say, and if people don't like me for what I am, tough -- that's their problem, not mine and I think it really does build you up as a person. Some swingers argue that swinging creates stronger bonds between couples. Married couples find that swinging increases their ability to communicate with each other. Many couples believe that if a married couple can discuss swinging together, they can discuss anything. Generally, swingers believe they experience individual growth and develop an ability to communicate better with other people. Generally, swingers believe that swinging has a positive effect on their marriage. About 85 percent of both husbands and wives feel that swinging is not a threat to marriage or love between spouses. None of them reported that their marriage became worse since they began swinging, and the marjority feel their marriages have improved. Husbands in particular consistently reported a high level of marital happiness and adjustment. Apparently, swinging has had no negative effect on the sexual lives of the couples; in fact, swinging couples have sexual intercourse more frequently than the general population. More than half of the swinging couples have sex together more than four times a week as compared with only 16 percent of the general population. Many swingers reported that rather than dampening their ardor for each other, swinging often caused an arousal of sexual interest for each other. Many of them often engaged in sex together immeditely after resuming home trom a swinging party. The effects ot swinging most often reported are the tollowing: (1) Couples experienced an increased feeling of warmth, closeness, and love, often most intense immediately after swinging, when the couple got together and exchanged their experiences. This is as if the swinging experience was proof of their love. (2) Knowledge and confidence regarding sexual technique was more fully developed. (3) Social life was enriched and active. (4) Couples became more open and honest with one another in all areas of their relationship. (5) A benefit for some was that sexual behavior was taken out ot the dark and became more of a taken-for granted normal activity. Another effect of swinging is that there is a change in the meaning of sex -- that is, of what is appropriate sexual behavior, in what situation, and with whom. Sexual behavior in swinging becomes more broadly defined to accommodate a wider range and choice of behavior than in a typical monogamous relationship. Sex takes on a different meaning for a wife and her spouse when she engages in oral-genital sex with another swinger in the presence of her husband. In addition, the idea that sexual exclusivity between marriage partners symbolizes devotion, trust, security, and love no longer holds, and nonexclusivity comes to symbolize these things. Further, sexual behavior loses its mystery, its secretiveness, and its aspect of "something done in the dark" and takes on more the character of normal everyday activity. Projections Swinging is an alternative that is emerging within the traditional structure of marriage in this country. Except for their participation in comarital sex, most swingers are living in a traditional nuclear family. One advantage for many people involved in swinging is that except for sexual bahavior, little change is required in major values related to the traditional family form. Swinging requires changing basic values related to monogamous sexual behavior or admitting values that are different, at least from what individuals have paid lip service to in the past. Families who swing find that except for sex related areas, it does not require substantial changes in behavioral and functional roles. There is some evidence, however, that such sexual activities sometimes require changes in how couples handle jealousy, power, and so forth in the marriage. Swinging marrieds probably represent the least revolutionary of the emerging alternative lifestyles examined in this book. Generally, swingers challenge traditional beliefs only in the area of sexual monogamy. Strong relationships outside the pair bond are still, for the most part, regarded as threats rather than potentials for personal growth. Generally, contemporary swingers view sex as a recreation, which is relatively consistent with a consumer-oriented society, although there is development of personal growth and change through swinging. Swinging may be a preservative rather than a catalyst for change in the basic structure of the family in our society. Swinging may be viewed as a bridge between old and new values for persons who need old values to feel comfortable in our changing society. Swinging, for the most part, only violates the sexual exclusivity value and not other basic values revolving around the traditional nuclear family. Thus, Denfeld and Gordon (1970) conclude that rules on sex, paternity, and social relationships among swingers make it an adjunct to marriage rather than strictly an alternative. From their point of view, then, swinging supports rather than disrupts monogamous marriage as it currently exists in our society.

Theorizing Sex in Heterodox Society: Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 9, April 18, 2006 Postmodernity, Late Capitalism and Non-monogamous Sexual Behavior Richard Coon, PhD Introduction This discourse sets forth an account of past and present normative stands and their relationship to a contemporary form of sexual activity termed "the lifestyle". The paper represents what Foucault termed an "effective history" (Grenz, p.147 , 1996 ), in that I make no claim to a privileged perspective outside of history but rather set forth a pragmatic account which suggests a coherent interpretation of a possible history of action that helps explain why standards of behavior appeared in history as they have and why they are now changing. The claims of the piece are grounded in a pragmatic understanding of truth rather than an essentialist, objectivist assertion of universal certainty. The Lifestyle/Swinging Recently various authors have reported the growth in numbers of people participating in what has been termed swinging or "the Lifestyle" (Schnakenberg, 2002; Laying, 1998; Bergstrand and Blevins Williams, 2000, Gould, 2001; St. John, 2004). Gould (2001), for example, asserts that millions of people in the U.S. participate or have participated in the swinging lifestyle. By using one of the various search engines available on the Internet one can get some idea of the growing ubiquity of this lifestyle choice, even though this non-monogamous form of sexual expression has historically been considered morally inappropriate behavior. The question I seek to deal with here is why this practice now appears to be more acceptable than it was in the past several hundred years. That is, what is it about the contemporary social situation that has created this state of affairs? My approach to this examination will suggest that both cultural and structural factors have played a major role in cultivating a normative landscape which creates a more open and pluralist understanding of sexual practice, thereby weakening the negative normative standards historically associated with non-monogamous behavior. The individual psychological reasons, however, for the increase in what is termed "sex positive" 2 behavior seem to vary widely. As one swingers website states: "One could easily conclude that the reasons for participating in swinging are as varied as the people who like swinging themselves." (www.xxxwebspace.net/xguides/swinging/) Hence, what I will suggest is that there have been certain transformations in the make up of contemporary social organization and practice that have created the opportunity for a shift in paradigm/episteme and that this shift has facilitated the increased potential for people to carry out behavior which has always been part of the human behavior matrix but was suppressed due to normative standards grounded in a different social and cultural matrix of discursive formations 3. Situating the normative sexual narrative in history Later in this section of the paper I articulate a necessarily brief outline exposition of some of the forces which are implicated in the construction of the morality of monogamy. First, however, I will indicate why the constitution of monogamy as the moral high ground is problematic. Various authors have begun to question the institutionalization of sexual monogamy as an essential or "natural" model of social and reproductive organization. For example, Michael Medved (p.2, 2002), while being discordant with this state of affairs, none the less has noted that "cutting edge anthropologists have recently ... suggest(ed) that the monogamous restraints of the traditional nuclear family represent an unnatural and unhealthy development for humanity." In their book "The Myth of Monogamy", Barash and Lipton argue that "...the evidence is overwhelming that monogamy is no more natural to human beings than it is to other living things."( 2001. p 141) They suggest that monogamy may well be the outcome of what is more or less a political strategy worked out in antiquity by males to lesson the infighting over sexual access. Further, they point out that polygamous sexual relationships appear to have been as "natural" a manifestation as any other for a large segment of human history. Citing the work of Baker and Bellis regarding sperm competition, Gould points out that their research indicates that "(i)n our evolutionary past, monogamy had probably never existed as a biological 'norm' for our species" (2001, p. 209). In fact, Dupanloup et. al. (2003) suggest that for most of our history humans were polygynous and only relatively recently took up monogamy as our primary approach to sexual interaction. Further, in his paper "The Establishment and Maintenance of Socially Imposed Monogamy in Western Europe", Kevin MacDonald (1995) indicates that for numerous reasons monogamy is a social/political rather than "natural" strategy for organizing humans into social groups. Thus, an increasing amount of recent scholarship is calling into question the essentialist character of monogamy as it relates to human sexuality. Monogamy as the Normative Standard: How did monogamy come to dominate

Considering that the essentialist qualities of monogamy are now being called into question by anthropologists, physical psychologists, psychiatrists, geneticists and others, what would explain its rise to dominance in western civilization? Perdue, (1986, p. 117) writing of the work of Talcott Parsons, states that Parsons believed "that the Christian church was the first crucible for Western culture". Kathy Gaca (in Richlin, 2005) suggests that sexual morality in modern culture has been shaped by early Greek and Christian postures toward sex. Foucault (1978) also suggests that later in European history, Christian conanical and pastoral pronouncements played a primary role in defining appropriate sexual practices.

Furthering this line of thinking, I articulate a modest examination of the role of religion in defining the parameters of proper sexual behavior. Early in European history religious institutions managed to take control of sexual behavior and institutionalize it in relation to the discursive formations of the time. In so doing, codified religion assured itself a strong role in the organization and management of human affairs for a very long time. But where did the Christian church come up with its normative narrative regarding sexual behavior? The Hebrew Background of Christian Sexual Norms

Barrington Moore, in his recent book "Moral Purity and Persecution in History" (2000), uses the concept of pollution to point out how sex was colonized as part of the narrative 4 which separated Hebrews as a people from those other cultures with which they came in contact. Sex was identified as part of a much larger category of polluting behaviors defining monotheistic Hebrews from other non-monotheists. Conversely, associated with this notion of pollution is its opposite, purity. The pure Hebrew must act in certain ways so as to remain defined as a desirable member of his/her community. As Moore points out, at this point in human history maintaining one's standing in the community was of utmost importance, for being banished, or even ostracized, meant one's chances for securing a good life, or even survival, dropped precipitously. The social construction of appropriate sexual behavior, then, serves as a means of socially ordering the community. It is a political tool as much as anything else.

Boswell notes that, "(p)rocreative purpose provided an early and influential rationale for controlling sexuality both inside and outside marriage" (1994, p. 112). Certainly in terms of species survival the reproductive aspect of sex has obviously been of significance for most of human history and therefore had to be dealt with by communities if they were to survive. As Moore (2000) suggests, the early Hebrew communities were small and in a precarious state of affairs. Thus, sexual reproduction was a significant responsibility for community members. Not only that, but a large family was a significant subsistence/economic asset. The need for reproduction, however, did not provide sex with a pro-social status in and of itself and was not the only reason for controlling sex. The Hebrews almost certainly controlled sexual behavior for purposes associated with paternity as well as population expansion and labor. Being a highly patriarchal society where women had low political status, males sought to assure themselves of proprietary control of their offspring by controlling female sexuality. Couple the need for population expansion with the proprietary nature of this particular form of strongly patriarchal social system and one begins to understand why, for example, for the Hebrews, same sex activity was considered inappropriate as well. Thinking about sexual activity from the point of view of patriarchy and inheritance, as well as the income associated with bride price, one can also see why a normative standard which prohibited females from being sexually active with more than one male came into being. Hence, it becomes obvious that a normative standard of monogamous heterosexuality would serve the interests of the Hebraic social order.

Even this superficial examination points out the socio-political nature of controlling sex. These are social/political and not "natural" pressures which act to shape the normative structure of sexual activity. Sex is used as a means of "governmentality", that is, as a means of managing behavior so as to conform to a certain type of social organization. The discursive formation of sex penetrates and colonizes the cultural space and is then internalized by individuals as the natural and appropriate behavioral code. In this way, individuals self evaluate and regulate their behavior in accord with the dominant master narrative, making it much more difficult for them to comprehend the politics/power expressed in their actions. ( This seems to me to be an excellent example of the pervasiveness of power embedded in the social matrix which Foucault found so intriguing.)

Out of the context of this patriarchal Hebraic tradition arose a reformist movement lead by Jesus Christ. Christ held many of the tenets of the Hebrew canon, such as the transcendent nature of God, while at the same time preaching a new doctrine of peace, inclusivity and forgiveness. Many Hebrews joined this new cult and began following this new charismatic leader. This change in narrative doctrine represents the beginning of what becomes a significant "discontinuity" (Foucault, 1994). However, as Weber (in Coser, 1971) has pointed out, charisma is an ephemeral quality and is lost with the demise of the charismatic leader. Once such a leader is no longer able to rally the followers, a process of routinization takes place so as to maintain the movement. It is out of this reformist movement that the less charismatic and more routinized institution of Christianity was formed.

A significant factor associated with the rise of institutionalized Christianity is that this later Christian religious narrative/dogma remained grounded in a doctrine of transcendence, hierarchy, patriarchy and extended the orthodoxy of sexual pollution. In the Christian masternarrative the body was seen as part of the lower realm of nature/animal existence and nature was seen as wild and in need of being tamed. Notice that for the Christians, God is said to have given the natural world to "man" to rule over. The task of the human was to act as a steward, "husbanding" resources so as to *manage* the worldly realm for the good of this transcendent God. In the Christian iteration of the great chain of being doctrine, the human condition is understood as somehow above the rest of nature and yet, manifest in a body, hence, one must *manage* the animalistic aspects of the body as well. In order for humans to fulfill their transcendent character they must control those lower characteristics so as to rise above the way of the flesh.

The discursive formations articulated by the Hebraic and Christian masternarratives set the ground work for a canon of sexual control (a form of biopower/governmentality) which, although being called into question in contemporary society, none the less, still functions as a powerful normative guide regarding appropriate sexual behavior. The episteme/paradigm of these early monotheists, whose account of hierarchical transcendence became the dominant western theme, can be understood as the fundamental epistemic grid upon which later western social systems articulated their social scaffolding, especially, in this case, regarding the general understanding of sexual behavior in western civilization. It seems to me that it can be argued that it is at this early period in western civilization that preliminary processes of creating "docile bodies" (Foucault in Allen, 2004) can be identified. This might be seen as a rudimentary form of "biopolitics" in that the economy of power articulated by the masternarrative embeds control of human action in the social order. Social control is thereby wrested from the secular individual and sedimented in the religio-political social narrative. Martine Rothblatt, in "The Apartheid of Sex" asserts that religious doctrine functioned to extend control of female sexual behavior to one male in the form of monogamy. This form of normative control served "the objective of better cementing patriarchal control over women...." (1995, p. 41) From her perspective, religiously based normative monogamy is primarily a politics of patriarchal control.

Up to this point then, what I am arguing is that historically, sexual behavior was normatively determined by the exigencies of the communities, the general episteme of the culture and by the occasioned narratives articulated by significant members of the power structure of that cultural matrix, rather than from some essentialist master code grounded in a biology or larger civilizational context. However, as Christianity, an off shoot of Hebrew doctrine, came to dominate European society, it brought with it many of the memes 4 integrated into that particular cultural complex. With Christianity taking hold on the European continent many of the beliefs of its early proponents became integrated into the cultural episteme of the dominant societies of the time and thereby became the dominant masternarrative in western civilization.

In the statements of many early church fathers one can see that sex itself is condemned as a polluting act. For example, Paul, one of the towers of the early church states that "(i)t is good for a man not to touch a woman..." (Barash and Lipton, p. 182, 2001). "Influenced by such opinions and the belief that sexual abstinence was the highest Christian calling, many Christians in many times and places forswore sexual relations altogether, even with their spouses" (Boswell, 1994, p. 119) Christianity was and still is a transcendent monotheistic patriarchal religion very unlike the pagan traditions it was replacing. Especially after the onset of religious transformations in Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the code of behavior became quite restrictive and unyielding. "There was only one way to gain signs of one's state of grace as a portent of one's being elect; namely, the methodical adherence to a God-pleasing code of conduct in whatever position the pious found himself.... The minimization of impulses and deviations from the religious code served the pious ... as an indication of his selected status in the eyes of God (Gerth and Mills, 1953, p. 235). Had Europe followed any one of various other "pagan" religious narratives the cultural memeplex/paradigm around sexual behavior would have been decidedly different in later western society. The Postmodern Turn

What is being suggested is that humans have wide potential for sexual expression which is not innately determined. The historic epoch and the epsiteme/paradigm of the specific culture play a very significant role in determining the proscriptive narrative associated with what is understood to be appropriate sexual behavior. Up until recently that narrative took the form of a totalizing masternarrative which allowed very little by way of alternative behavior. Through newly institutionalized means, identified by Foucault (1990), practices were instituted in the 17 th and 18 th centuries which solidified the production of the docile bodies necessary for a more disciplinary society. Behavior which did not correspond to the masternarrative, grounded in the Christian cultural paradigm, was defined as deviant, sick, insane, abhorrent, wicked or in some manner individually and socially offensive and problematic. People so defined were sanctioned in some manner so as to control their behavior in conformance with what was understood to be "Truth" relative to that particular epoch and episteme.

As both Kuhn and Foucault point out, however, paradigms/epistemes are not set in stone and do change (what Foucault called discontinuity) and with that change comes a new world view (1994). In his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Kuhn notes that: "...when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. .... In so far as their only recourse to that world is through what they see and do, we may want to say that after a revolution (change in paradigm) scientists (people) are responding to a different world." (Kuhn, 1973, p. 111, my insertions) In other words, for various reasons, paradigms change and when that happens what passed for truth before can and may be called into question. In these new cultural spaces, created by paradigmatic revolutions, new narratives can express very different understandings of how the world, life and/or society works.

I suggest that the concept of postmodernity refers to just such a revolution/discontinuity of world view. The episteme of the present epoch is being transformed by a variety of forces which include capitalism in its latest manifestation as an institution geared toward maximal consumption, the exceptionally rapid transformation and expansion of technology (see for example Jean-Francois Lyotard) and the growing crises of legitimation in a variety of institutions in contemporary society (eg., religion, science and government). Even Fredric Jameson, who doesn't see postmodernity as necessarily a full break with the modern world but rather as simply a late stage of capitalism, notes that the normative standards of present society have changed drastically, and not necessarily to his liking.

"As for the postmodern revolt..., however, it must equally be stressed that its own offensive features - from obscurity and sexually explicit material to psychological squalor and overt expressions of social and political defiance, which transcend anything that might have been imagined at the most extreme moments of high modernism - no longer scandalise anyone and are not only received with the greatest complacency but have themselves become institutionalised and are at one with the official or public culture of Western society. (Jameson, 1984, 1994, p. 4).

In his book on the postmodern condition, Lyotard, (1984) asserts that one of the primary features of the postmodern world is the loss of faith in metanarratives. In fact, he considers this to be the defining factor of the postmodern state of affairs. For instance, he says, "(s)implifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanaratives." (Lyotard, 1984, p. xxiv, emphasis in the original) What this suggests then, is that there is no longer any one central or core narrative which defines appropriate behavior such as was the case while Christianity held sway. Rather, there are now numerous micro narratives which serve to legitimate and direct behavior under various circumstances. As Gerth and Mills (1953, p. 116) put it years ago, there is an "...intrinsically social character to motivation.... The words which may fulfill this function are limited to the vocabulary of motives acceptable to given situations by given social circles." In other words, the codes of conduct individuals draw upon to define and direct their behavior are socially situated and grounded in the episteme of specific epochs and potentially even specific social realms and this is even more the case now then when Gerth and Mills stated this point. The postmodern world is a more heterodox world than ever before.

As this relates to sexual behavior, what is happening in the contemporary consumer society is that forces associated with consumer capitalism, technology and institutional legitimation crises have created the cultural space for a situational narrative code which opens the market place of behaviors to an almost limitless array of expression. One example of constructing a new micro account of an otherwise historically dominant institutional narrative can be found in statements made by Christian swingers legitimating their non-monogamous behavior (see for example www.libchrist.com/bible/compatible.html). At this time in the history of advanced consumer societies there are few restrictive narratives associated with sexual expression which are not being deconstructed and delegitimated (see for ex. Rothblatt, 1995).

Foucault (1978) points out that sex is an exceptionally powerful behavioral node in the cultural matrix which became more administered in the last three humdred years than it had been even under the restrictions of earlier religious narrative. Although Foucault relegates structural analysis of this sort to a level of secondary concern, I believe it can be argued that a significant part of the reason for this increase in the administration of sex had to do with the turn toward the rational administration of the world in general, associated with the growth of capitalism as the economic form in western society and science as the technology for articulating truth. As Weber suggests (Coser, 1971), along with capitalism came a rise in rationalization and bureaurcratization. Increased management of sex in the life world co-arose with the transformation of the life world by a confluence of factors; increased religious asceticism, capitalism, rational calculation, bureacratization and the scientization of the life world being five of the more significant transformative forces. A Marxian account of this state of affairs might be that managing the social world, what Foucault refers to as discipline, became more important to capitalism because as the worker sold his labor on the market, the capitalist as buyer attempted to maximize his gain in terms of his labor purchase. In other words, the logical imperative of capitalism colonizes as much of the energy, both physical and mental, of the social system for market purposes as is possible. As the exploitation of labor was of keen interest to the owner, control of the laborer only seemed reasonable. The worker owed his livelihood to the owner and the owner felt it was his right to protect his interests by controlling the behavioral field. While it is true that non-disciplinary sex of the meanest sort expressed itself in the oppressed working class, as an acceptable form of behavior, sex was regulated and disciplined because, although "(s)ex had no industrial value" (Mumford, 1962, p. 180) the *disciplinary value* associated with this form of social control helped shape the "docile bodies" of the time into human capital. It was simply one more aspect of a disciplined social order mandated by the newly unfolding rational world. Foucault points out that the management of sex followed various paths at this time; for the working class he believes what he calls "alliance" played the primary role. "... (T)hey were subjected in specific ways to the deployment of "alliances": the exploitation of legitimate marriage and fertility..." (1974, p.121). Here one can see how economic forces determine social relations. As is the case in all social systems, how these narratives are implemented varied across social categories.

In the latter part of the twentieth century, however, there was a change in the axial problematic of capitalism, from the issue of production to one of consumption. This change in economic imperative may be seen to correspond to changes in the axial problematic associated with the normative discipline/management of sexual expression in contemporary society. This transformation in disciplinary normative code is associated with an expansion in the market place of ideas relating to sex and sexuality. The issues associated with reproductive sex have become more complex and are being narrated as part of a new politics of freedom. With the advent of the birth control pill and the opening of the employment structure, women are becoming more self empowered agents in terms of directing their own futures. They are exerting their new found status as equal members of the economic order in ways that are reshaping the politics of sex as well as sexuality. As a consequence of these new social dynamics the discursive formations which held in the past are now being challenged. What it means to be a woman is being contested and reshaped. The concepts of sexuality and gender are coming under scrutiny. The individualism of the market place is now shaping the sexual identity of both men and women. The certainty of proper sexual behavior established by the modern metanarrative is now much more open to interpretation.

As noted, the advancement in reproductive technologies of recent decades has helped to precipitate this change in world view. On numerous occasions Rothblatt (1995) avers that the social order that held sway in the past can no longer continue to do so because of the numerous changes which have taken place in the social world. Gimenez (1991, p.1) points out that "(f)ertility control technologies" allow people to control reproduction and thereby allow for "the separation of sexuality from reproduction". As I suggested earlier, technology has played a significant role in the fabrication of the postmodern condition. The transformation of technical potential relative to reproduction is an important impetus for the new social acceptance of non-reproductive sexual activity. With the advent of the potential to control the reproduction of the human species through easily facilitated means, such as the birth control pill, and the increasing potential to actually create human life outside of the context of actual human sexual activity, the forms of, and reasons for, control of sexual behavior are much different for society today than in the past. 5

Under this new state of affairs, transformed by these technologies of sex and with the axial problem in modern capitalist society more and more becoming one of consumption versus production, sex has taken on new value as an aspect of the market. For example, one of the problems faced by the contemporary capitalist is getting consumers to purchase his/her particular product versus one of the sundry other replications on the market. In the twentieth century, advertising was expanded and made more sophisticated to do just that, get people to buy a specific product, but as all manufacturers now advertise, the new problem is to engage what is becoming a highly cynical audience. As there is more and more advertising, marketers must somehow break through the confusion and chaos of messages to get the attention of potential consumers. One of the means to do this is to create sensational ads using sex to get attention. Hence, we have seen more and more ads in the past few decades associating sex with products, even if there is no intrinsic relationship. Under these circumstances varied sexual behavior is simply not that shocking any longer. As Foucault (1994) points out, because power is polymorphous in its effect, the outcomes of its use are not necessarily always in the direction of its application. Hence, although sex is now introduced into society as a sales vehicle its trajectory into the social order is also transforming mass behavior codes in ways which are tangential to its intended use. Now the expression of sexual activity is simply becoming blase' due to the sheer number of exposures each individual has in the contemporary market place. Sex is losing its taboo quality (Layng, 1998).

With media programs such as "Sex in the City", Howard Sterns and El Vacilion (Bonilla, 2006) becoming normal fare one can easily see how different the present social milieu is from even the 1950's. Members of present day western society are more accommodating to variations on sexual expression 6 at least partially because of the way marketers have linked it with other, supposedly positive facets of life. To some extent then, the transformation of norms and attitudes toward sex may be understood as an unintended manifestation of simple classical conditioning. What I want to suggest here is that regardless of the actual causal mechanisms, the episteme/paradigm of contemporary consumer based society has changed and that within the cultural context of that change, for a growing segment of the society sexual practices such as swinging are no longer seen in the same light as they had been in the past. 7

In the consumer demand culture of advanced capitalism there seems to be increased legitimacy for a wide variety of behaviors which corresponds to a consumerist behavior code. As noted earlier, the central problematic of late consumer capitalism is one of consumption. What is consumed is of much less import than that consumption takes place. Note that after the 9/11 tragedy president Bush rallied Americans to go buy something. He did not delimit what should be consumed, that was of less significance than that something, anything, be purchased for consumption. It is consumption that underpins the structures and mind-set of late capitalism. Thus, it seems only reasonable that consumption would migrate from the realm of purely economic activity to that of general social activity and hence, sexual expression.

In fact, it can be argued that since we have little or no legitimate guiding masternarrative to shape human social conduct today, other than the a-moral economic code of the self interested pursuit of what is deemed profitable, individuals participating in "the Lifestyle" are simply acting in accord with the behavioral parameters of postmodern society. 8 I do not state this as an evaluative statement of good or bad but rather simply as indicative of the discursive formations guiding human comprehension and explication at this time. Hence, sexual behavior of the sort associated with swinging, as long as it does not cause physical problems for the community at large and does not cause problems for the participants, can not legitimately be ostracized in the context of contemporary heterodox society based on the orthodox moral hortatory of merely one cultural enclave, even if that enclave represents various powerful segments of the system. As Robert McGinley notes, "(j)ust look at our evolution as a nation and you'll see where the playcouple fits in naturally." (Gould, 2000; p. 25) Conclusion

What I have tried to suggest here is that for various reasons the epistemic grid upon which discursive formations rest has changed and that such a change brings forth a new and different social reality. Capitalism, advanced technologies (especially reproductive and computational), the loss of faith in numerous fundamental institutions (note for example the recent scandals associated with the Catholic church and the impact this is having on the laity) and the general sense of estrangement from other primary institutions (especially government, as can be seen by the drop in voter participation in America) all appear to be implicated in the matrix of forces serving to transform the paradigm and masternarrative(s) which controlled society for the last several hundred years. The old classical and modern masternarratives, grounded in a different episteme, are being questioned and no longer hold a fully totalizing grip on all segments of society.

As a caveat, it must be noted however, that orthodox conventions expressed as social cannon still play a considerable role in determining what constitutes appropriate behavior for the general population. As Lyotard (1984) pointed out, postmodernity is uneven in its manifestation across societies as well as within social systems. None the less, it is evident that the modernist canon is being challenged and that certain enclaves of individuals are forging new and different situated micro narratives regarding appropriate standards for human conduct. In the context of contemporary advanced consumer society, sexual norms are being transformed to include a variety of sexual expression such as homosexuality, bisexuality and non-monogamous heterosexual relationships and the new postmodern paradigm appears to be shaping itself to accommodate this new diversity. Unless conditions change considerably in the coming years I see no reason why non-monogamous heterosexuality will not become a more normal and accepted manifestation of a presently widening array of sexual expressions.

Having said that, I feel it important to note that it may well be that conditions/contingencies change so as to reverse this trend and actually bring about a narrowing of behavioral potential. As environmental conditions worsen we may see a rebirth of frugality in all aspects of human existence, not just commodity consumption. The backlash of conservatism may also constrict the sexual market place; notice the recently renewed effort to dismantle Roe vs. Wade. If people want to continue to expand human potential it will be wise to pay attention to the narratives being forged to explicate acceptable human behavior and to attend to the biopolitics and governmentality of neoconservative political institutions as well as to the power/knowledge associated with the expansion of informational technologies and disciplines.

Endnotes 1. This paper is a more or less postmodern form of explication, in that I ground the validity of the narrative in what might be understood to be an inter-textual honorific style of claims making rather than valorizing the authority of the positivist, data based explanation. This is an unabashedly interpretive hermeneutic exegesis. I suggest that human action must be understood within the context of historically specific cultural, structural and epistemic patterns/matrices. Hence, to some extent, my approach is concordant with the concept of historical materialism, albeit without the attendant search for underlying universals and with a greater emphasis on cultural factors. This does not, however, mean that I eschew the facticity of biology or the prepotence of evolution. I am simply asserting a non-biologically essentialist elucidation of social factors which serve to fabricate a pragmatic explanation of changing sexual behavior. I do believe that biology plays a significant role in the expression of human action but that it is only one facet of understanding the human project. I suggest that due to the accumulation of culture over time, both in its material and non-material expressions, culture is playing a more and more prominent role in shaping human action. This being the case, the interrogation of culture becomes of utmost importance in comprehending human activity. The pertinent insight here is the suggestion that while biology does remain an important feature of the human condition, it, for all practical purposes, has remained in stasis while culture has continued to accumulate, now to such a point as to dominate the behavior field.

2. The concept "sex positive", as I understand it, refers to viewing pleasurable versus reproductive sexual behavior pragmatically, in terms of its positive psychological and physical characteristics versus the negative connotations which have been associated with non-reproductive sex for many years.

3. Foucault's concepts of discursive formation and episteme, along with Kuhn's concept paradigm, will be used to indicate that human comprehension of the world is shaped by culture and sign. An episteme, as I understand it, can be understood as a sign code which gives order to things. Radford (2001), writing of issues of librarianship, states that "...a discursive formation (similar to episteme in Foucault's late writing) refers to the ways in which a collection of texts are organized with respect to each other." In a more abstract sense it refers to "the ... idea: that a society in an historical epoch shared an unconscious cultural formation which set up the rules of reasoning ... and the codes of cultural thought." (Horus Gets In Gear, p. 3) As I am using paradigm one might think of it as a memeplex. That is, a set or pattern of meaning units which make up a thought container or matrix through which individuals within that memeplex view and understand the world. Paradigm, like episteme, exists more or less a priori the actor in each historical epoch. That is, they predate incumbents in the cultural system. They are not, as Kuhn has pointed out, temporally absolute and can and do change over time, however. One might think of the difference between these concepts as one, episteme, acting like the rules of thinking and associating significant signs and the other, paradigm, the content of what is thought.

4. Bevir and Rhodes (2001) suggest that: "... Narrative stands here as a form of explanation that unpacks human actions in terms of the beliefs and desires of the actors. It embodies particular theories about the rationality of actors, their institutional embeddedness, and their capacity for agency, as well typically as a historical story. .... A narrative thus bears at least a partial resemblance to Michel Foucault's concept of an episteme or Thomas Kuhn's of a paradigm."

5. Certainly reproduction is still a significant issue and interestingly, due to the confluence of ideology and population dynamics some are now calling for an increase in reproduction (Steyn, 2006), but the exigencies of the contemporary global issues will almost certainly shape behavioral responses in a fundamentally different manner than in the past.

6. The concept of memes was first articulated by Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene" in 1976. I understand this concept to refer to meaningful units situated in culture which somehow manage to remain a significant aspect of culture overtime not necessarily because they are true but because the meme provides a service to the user or the community in itself.

Tony Lezard (What is a meme) puts it like this: "Richard Dawkins, who coined the word in his book The Selfish Gene defines the meme as simply a unit of intellectual or cultural information that survives long enough to be recognized as such, and which can pass from mind to mind. There's not much of a sense of describing thought processes, but nor is it just a model. As Richard Dawkins writes (this is from memory), 'God indeed exists, if only as a pattern in brain structures replicated across the minds of billions of people throughout the world.' (Of course the patterns aren't physically identical, but they represent the same thing.)"

7. Note for example the large spread in the New York Times (1/11/04) SundayStyles section. Replete with erogenous pictures, the article does not present this as negative behavior but merely one more variation.

8. I believe for many people participating in the practice of swinging (who are known as play couples) these practices are not only more acceptable than in the past but actually fill a void for them which has been created by the late capitalist postmodern condition itself. References

"Information on Swinging." http://www.xxxwebspace.net/xguides/swinging/

Allen, Barry. 2004. Knowledge and Civilization. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press.

Barash, David B and Judith Lipton. 2001. The Myth of Monogamy. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Bergrstand, Dr. Curtis and Jennifer Blevins Williams. 2000. "Today's Alternative Marriage Styles: The Case of Swingers." Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality Volume 3. http://www.ejhs.org/volume3/swing/body.htm

Bonilla, Dulce Reyes. 2006, February 15. "Let's Talk About Sexo." WWW.Alternet.org

Coser, Lewis. 1971. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Foucault, Michel. 1990. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction Volume One. New York: Vintage Books.

Foucault, Michel. 1994. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.

Gerth, Hans and C.Wright Mills. 1964. Character and Social Structure. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.

Giminez, Martha A. 1991. "The Mode of Reproduction in Transition - A Marxist-Feminist Analysis of the Effects of Reproductive Technologies" Gender & Society. 5: 334-350.

Gould, Terry. 1999. The Lifestyle. Buffalo, NY: Firefly Books.

Jameson, Frederic. 1984. "Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism." New Left Review. 146: 53-92.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd Edition, Enlarged. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Layng, Anthony. 1998. "Confronting the Public Nudity Taboo: Liberalization of American Mores." USA Today. Sept.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois . 1997. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Moore, Barrington JR. Moral Purity and Persecution in History. 2000. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Mumford, Lewis. Technics and Civilization. 1963. New York: Harcourt Brace and World Inc.

Paris, Bill. 1997. "Sexual Freedom, Polyamory and Christianity: The Case for Compatibility" Liberated Christians. http://www.libchrist.com/bible/compatible.html

Rothblatt, Martine. 1995. The Apartheid of Sex: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Gender. New York: Crown Publishers Inc.

Schnakenberg, Robert E. 2002. "Swinging." St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Gale Group http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/g1epc/tov/2419101187/p1/article.jhtml

Steyn, Mark. 2006. "The Century Ahead". Opinion Journal from The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page. WWW.opinionjournal.com.

St. John, Warren. January 11, 2004. "Parties Where an ID is the Least of What you Show". New York Times. Nat'l edition