Are Swinging and Swapping Immoral?

[Slopeshoulder]

This is a serious question that I'd like to discuss soberly. This is not a joke thread.

There's an article in today's NY Times about a guy in China who has been given hard time in the big house for hosting orgies. He even earned their quote of the day. Let's debate the morality of his lifestyle, from a religion and values perspective.

CAVEAT: no R-rated material allowed. Also, personally I'm gleefully monogamous and plan to stay that way. I have no skin in the game (no pun intended). But the topic is ethically interesting and timely.

Option 1: the Bible says this kind of behavior is really really horrifically sinful, consistently. And tradition affirms it, as do mainream religious mores. End of story.

Option 2: there's no god, but it's unethical.

Option 3: there's no god, but it's ethical.

Option 4: there is a God, but it's ethical anyway.

For the sake of debate, I'll argue for option four.
Here's how:
First, assume there's a God for the sake of discussion. Now...

- Point one: the overarching themes in judeo-christian tradition regarding human relations, sexual and otherwise, emphasize the centrality of love, respect, charity, consent, mutuality, fairness, non-abuse, non-exploitation, non-violence, sobriety, justice, honesty, inclusion, human flourishing, not-objectifying others, etc. It's the themes that matter. It's not about what the Bible says, it about what it means. To mean anything it needs to be reappropriated for each generation.

- Point 2: The minor themes have to do with proscriptions and prohibitions
of things like pre and extramarital sex, licentiousness, lust in the heart, etc. But, like not eating pork, these are associated with ritual purity in that cultural context(a spiritual notion) and pragmatism and health (in other words, not spreading desease, creating unwanted children, blurring tribal boundaries, inspiring jealousy and attendant violence, and undermining property boundaries: including the mrs.). These specifics matter less and are timebound.

- Point 3: Within boundaries, sex is good and a gift (in scripture and tradition). Asceticism is not mandated, merely a choice for some.

As to point 1: swingers and swappers can meet all these criteria (where love is defined broadly as charity, empathy, and inclusion, as it is in scripture and tradition, and not in the modern romantic sense). Moreover, swingers and swappers have overcome jealousy and define human connection broadly and optimistically.

As to point 2: In modern times, non-tribal civil structures, birth control technology, and law are more evolved, so most of these decontextualized and ancient specific proscriptions and prohibitions no longer inhere or apply to us today. Plus, as above, swingers and swappers have overcome jealousy.

As to point 3: so S&S may not be advisable, or enjoyable, or for me or you, but it is not inherently immoral or unethical. An imagined religoius swinger and swapper association is not prima facie oxymoronic. It even might sacrilize the behavior, which is not unknown to world religious history.

We're specifically talking about swinging and swapping only.
We're NOT talking about cheating, pedophilia, bestiality, S&M, or homosexuality in this thread. So so don't lump them in without a reason.

Please debate. I'm pretty sure that in this forum appeals to scripture as authoritative are allowed, but please adress the issues up for debate as outlined in the options above if you select option 1.

[Slopeshoulder]

Option 1: the Bible says this kind of behavior is really really horrifically sinful, consistently. And tradition affirms it, as do mainream religious mores. End of story.

Remove a really, and the horrifically, and it's pretty much accurate. If someone chooses to live their life in accordance with the morality presented in the Bible, then trying to justify 'swinging' is a ridiculous stretch.

Option 2: there's no god, but it's unethical.

If there's no god, I don't think you can prove anything is objectively unethical.

Option 3: there's no god, but it's ethical.

Likewise, you cannot prove anything is objectively ethical. Subjectively, it is whatever you (or your society, or both) says it is.

Option 4: there is a God, but it's ethical anyway.

Even if that were objectively the case, I do not think you could ever prove it to be. If you're accepting the Bible as your view of God then option one applies. If you're accepting a different view of God then you're probably using another subjective system of morality anyways and would have to judge the action by that system.

Let's stipulate that nothhing having to do with ethics is objectively provable. That's another thread.

But the majority of christians don't use the bible alone, but rather they form an opinion based on many sources in addition to the bible.

I'm not trying to make the case or prove the morality of this behavior, expecially based on the bible alone. I have no agenda, I'm simply asking if is inherently excluded (as opposed exluded per social mores). You seem to think so, but have only described the thought as 'ridiculous'; you haven't mounted a case, provided evidence, or proven anything. But this is something you otherwise demand. Can you elaborate your position?

It is, by definition, adultery. The Bible is quite clear on that matter as being immoral. If someone is claiming to use that as their morality, trying to argue that swinging is moral requires a stretch that seems quite absurd.

If someone is not using the Bible as their source of moral authority, then the Bible's opinion on the subject is moot. If someone is using the Bible as their source of moral authority, then they are being a hypocrite by engaging in such behavior. Given most people are hypocrites in one way or another, I would remove the 'really, really, horrifically' qualification of sinful, but if someone were trying to argue it is not excluded as an ethical course of action per the Bible, their position seems to me to be definition-ally and textually inaccurate.

I don't think it's referred to specifically, but in a broad definition, then yes it IS adultery, by definition as you say. But that is the question. Because by a narrower, and perhaps better definition, adultery involves dishonesty and secrecy, lack of consent, with the effect of betrayal, stolen property, and social instability. The spirit (it's the bible after all), not the letter (and not only the bible; the bible outlaws eating pork, which I do regularly, but it also features plural wives, which are now disallowed). But swinging involves four people (or more), is consensual, moot re: property, and with contraception moot re: instability. By what other criteria would it be ruled out? The broad brush of adultery seems to coarse.

I know that 99.999% of religious peeople would rule it out, but when probed (dammit, someone stop the puns), we must ask why. It seems to me that "adultery" by itself doesn't cut it.

An alternative argument might be that marriage is an intimation or imitation of divine union or unity and that plural or poly dilutes that. That's my reason anyway.

[Miles]

The whole issue of morality comes down to one's personal moral code, regardless of its origin. If swinging and swapping violates the code then they are immoral within that framework. If one's morals are such that swinging and swapping do not qualify as immoral then, of course, they're not. Personally, I go along with achilles here and agree that so long as what you do harms none, do what you will.

So, I see no argument over the morality of swinging and swapping; your system of morals may condemn it while mine may not. Case closed.

What I see as far more interesting is the basis of one's moral code, irrespective of the issues it's applied to.

[ChaosBorders]

Option 1: the Bible says this kind of behavior is really really horrifically sinful, consistently. And tradition affirms it, as do mainream religious mores. End of story.

Remove a really, and the horrifically, and it's pretty much accurate. If someone chooses to live their life in accordance with the morality presented in the Bible, then trying to justify 'swinging' is a ridiculous stretch.

Option 2: there's no god, but it's unethical.

If there's no god, I don't think you can prove anything is objectively unethical.

Option 3: there's no god, but it's ethical.

Likewise, you cannot prove anything is objectively ethical. Subjectively, it is whatever you (or your society, or both) says it is.

Option 4: there is a God, but it's ethical anyway.

Even if that were objectively the case, I do not think you could ever prove it to be. If you're accepting the Bible as your view of God then option one applies. If you're accepting a different view of God then you're probably using another subjective system of morality anyways and would have to judge the action by that system.

Let's stipulate that nothhing having to do with ethics is objectively provable. That's another thread.

But the majority of christians don't use the bible alone, but rather they form an opinion based on many sources in addition to the bible.

I'm not trying to make the case or prove the morality of this behavior, expecially based on the bible alone. I have no agenda, I'm simply asking if is inherently excluded (as opposed exluded per social mores). You seem to think so, but have only described the thought as 'ridiculous'; you haven't mounted a case, provided evidence, or proven anything. But this is something you otherwise demand. Can you elaborate your position?

It is, by definition, adultery. The Bible is quite clear on that matter as being immoral. If someone is claiming to use that as their morality, trying to argue that swinging is moral requires a stretch that seems quite absurd.

If someone is not using the Bible as their source of moral authority, then the Bible's opinion on the subject is moot. If someone is using the Bible as their source of moral authority, then they are being a hypocrite by engaging in such behavior. Given most people are hypocrites in one way or another, I would remove the 'really, really, horrifically' qualification of sinful, but if someone were trying to argue it is not excluded as an ethical course of action per the Bible, their position seems to me to be definition-ally and textually inaccurate.

I don't think it's referred to specifically, but in a broad definition, then yes it IS adultery, by definition as you say. But that is the question. Because by a narrower, and perhaps better definition, adultery involves dishonesty and secrecy, lack of consent, with the effect of betrayal, stolen property, and social instability. The spirit (it's the bible after all), not the letter (and not only the bible; the bible outlaws eating pork, which I do regularly, but it also features plural wives, which are now disallowed). But swinging involves four people (or more), is consensual, moot re: property, and with contraception moot re: instability. By what other criteria would it be ruled out? The broad brush of adultery seems to coarse.

I know that 99.999% of religious peeople would rule it out, but when probed (dammit, someone stop the puns), we must ask why. It seems to me that "adultery" by itself doesn't cut it.

An alternative argument might be that marriage is an intimation or imitation of divine union or unity and that plural or poly dilutes that. That's my reason anyway.

I think the issues of lust brought up by Paul and in Matthew also speak to why it is considered immoral, with your note on the end also being a large part of it. The pork thing isn't such a stretch because there's plenty in Paul suggesting that to be no longer necessary. The only way to get swinging as acceptable is to start tossing out books. If that's what someone wants to do, so be it, but if they don't, then I just don't see how they can seriously justify it as an ethical action.

[Slopeshoulder]

The whole issue of morality comes down to one's personal moral code, regardless of its origin. If swinging and swapping violates the code then they are immoral within that framework. If one's morals are such that swinging and swapping do not qualify as immoral then, of course, they're not. Personally, I go along with achilles here and agree that so long as what you do harms none, do what you will.

So, I see no argument over the morality of swinging and swapping; your system of morals may condemn it while mine may not. Case closed.

What I see as far more interesting is the basis of one's moral code, irrespective of the issues it's applied to.

We all have a personal moral code.
But are you suggesting that there is no basis for shared or possibly objective morality? All morality is private or socially constructed? Even sociobiologists argue for more than that. Personal morality theory begs the question how how civil society is possible.

[Slopeshoulder]

I think the issues of lust brought up by Paul and in Matthew also speak to why it is considered immoral, with your note on the end also being a large part of it. The pork thing isn't such a stretch because there's plenty in Paul suggesting that to be no longer necessary. The only way to get swinging as acceptable is to start tossing out books. If that's what someone wants to do, so be it, but if they don't, then I just don't see how they can seriously justify it as an ethical action.

Good points. But Paul accepts the reality of lust and counsels marriage as a strategy. He must have known about roman orgies and probably included them on the no list. But is it possible that rhose orgies were lacking in the themes of consent, respect, etc, and that he didn't anticipate people who had matured psychologically enough to share?
I agree that the Bible authors are against it specifically. But I still suggest that it is not wrong thematically. The reason is because I believe that reappropriation of ancient texts and living traditions require us to emphasize broad themes over specific lists.

[ChaosBorders]

I think the issues of lust brought up by Paul and in Matthew also speak to why it is considered immoral, with your note on the end also being a large part of it. The pork thing isn't such a stretch because there's plenty in Paul suggesting that to be no longer necessary. The only way to get swinging as acceptable is to start tossing out books. If that's what someone wants to do, so be it, but if they don't, then I just don't see how they can seriously justify it as an ethical action.

Good points. But Paul accepts the reality of lust and counsels marriage as a strategy. He must have known about roman orgies and probably included them on the no list. But is it possible that rhose orgies were lacking in the themes of consent, respect, etc, and that he didn't anticipate people who had matured psychologically enough to share?
I agree that the Bible authors are against it specifically. But I still suggest that it is not wrong thematically. The reason is because I believe that reappropriation of ancient texts and living traditions require us to emphasize broad themes over specific lists.

I recognize that there are some who simply cannot maintain a totally monogamous relationship and be happy due to whatever biological makeup they have been born with. However, I question whether the majority of people swinging actually have such biology, or whether most are simply giving into lustful urges they could be happy without succumbing to if they put more effort and focus into their own personal relationship. No matter how I look at the issue, I do not think most of the Bible authors would be in favor either specifically or thematically.

Of course, most of the Bible authors are not in favor of a lot of things. Something being unethical in and of itself has rarely stopped most people, even the ones who claim that it should. Before choosing to engage in such a behavior I think the couple should very carefully examine whether it is something they really both want (opposed to one doing it just to please the other) and whether they believe their relationship would truly benefit from it. In some cases the answer would probably be yes (just as in some cases it is beneficial to lie, regardless of that being unethical biblically). More often than not though, I suspect such behavior is ultimately deleterious to the relationship. Further, I do not think people should make excuses for their behavior. If they claim to follow the morality in the Bible they should accept it as unethical per the Bible. If they choose to do it anyways, that is only their concern.

[Slopeshoulder]

I think the issues of lust brought up by Paul and in Matthew also speak to why it is considered immoral, with your note on the end also being a large part of it. The pork thing isn't such a stretch because there's plenty in Paul suggesting that to be no longer necessary. The only way to get swinging as acceptable is to start tossing out books. If that's what someone wants to do, so be it, but if they don't, then I just don't see how they can seriously justify it as an ethical action.

Good points. But Paul accepts the reality of lust and counsels marriage as a strategy. He must have known about roman orgies and probably included them on the no list. But is it possible that rhose orgies were lacking in the themes of consent, respect, etc, and that he didn't anticipate people who had matured psychologically enough to share?
I agree that the Bible authors are against it specifically. But I still suggest that it is not wrong thematically. The reason is because I believe that reappropriation of ancient texts and living traditions require us to emphasize broad themes over specific lists.

I recognize that there are some who simply cannot maintain a totally monogamous relationship and be happy due to whatever biological makeup they have been born with. However, I question whether the majority of people swinging actually have such biology, or whether most are simply giving into lustful urges they could be happy without succumbing to if they put more effort and focus into their own personal relationship. No matter how I look at the issue, I do not think most of the Bible authors would be in favor either specifically or thematically.

Of course, most of the Bible authors are not in favor of a lot of things. Something being unethical in and of itself has rarely stopped most people, even the ones who claim that it should. Before choosing to engage in such a behavior I think the couple should very carefully examine whether it is something they really both want (opposed to one doing it just to please the other) and whether they believe their relationship would truly benefit from it. In some cases the answer would probably be yes (just as in some cases it is beneficial to lie, regardless of that being unethical biblically). More often than not though, I suspect such behavior is ultimately deleterious to the relationship. Further, I do not think people should make excuses for their behavior. If they claim to follow the morality in the Bible they should accept it as unethical per the Bible. If they choose to do it anyways, that is only their concern.

I absolutely agree with every word of your second paragraph.

But I have to point out that your first paragraph seems to be limited by two considerations. Frist, yu seem to reduce christianity to the bible, but they are not equated. Second, you seem to be arguing from the assumptions of what (we agree) is probably written and intended in the bible. I'm trying to broaden the discussion away from a narrow or originalist bibicism.
I feel comfortable doing this because the behavior, and any like it, are not on my radar or within the range of the possbible. It's academic, but that brings academic freedom. So yes, biblicists and originalists can probably claim that the behavior is immoral, lumping it in with adultery and lust. And anti-religionists who want to blame the bible are not incorrect in doing so. But for the sake of a living religious tradition, one that constructively reappropriates, I think the question remains open.

I'd only add that while I'm defending option 4 (theistic swingin'), for the sake of this thread, I am very interested in modern religious or secular arguments against it, drawing upon any ethical, psychological, or outcome-oriented ideas. My concern with my own argument against it (e.g. indivisible intimacy) is that it is potentially elitist vs. those folks who have neither capacity nor access to this kind of intimacy. On the other hand, no harm, no foul. OR maybe, as Achilles reports, they feel even deeper intimacy.

[ChaosBorders]

I absolutely agree with every word of your second paragraph.

But I have to point out that your first paragraph seems to be limited by two considerations. Frist, yu seem to reduce christianity to the bible, but they are not equated. Second, you seem to be arguing from the assumptions of what (we agree) is probably written and intended in the bible. I'm trying to broaden the discussion away from a narrow or originalist bibicism.
I feel comfortable doing this because the behavior, and any like it, are not on my radar or within the range of the possbible. It's academic, but that brings academic freedom. So yes, biblicists and originalists can probably claim that the behavior is immoral, lumping it in with adultery and lust. And anti-religionists who want to blame the bible are not incorrect in doing so. But for the sake of a living religious tradition, one that constructively reappropriates, I think the question remains open.

I'd only add that while I'm defending option 4 (theistic swingin'), for the sake of this thread, I am very interested in modern religious or secular arguments against it, drawing upon any ethical, psychological, or outcome-oriented ideas. My concern with my own argument against it (e.g. indivisible intimacy) is that it is potentially elitist vs. those folks who have neither capacity nor access to this kind of intimacy. On the other hand, no harm, no foul. OR maybe, as Achilles reports, they feel even deeper intimacy.

My argument is not pointing out what 'Christianity' as a whole thinks, only that any 'Christians' who are claiming to derive their morality from the Bible would have an extremely hard time justifying such behavior. If they claim to be Christian but do not claim to derive their morality from the Bible, that is their own concern.

I would definitely be interested in research on the subject. The only study results I've read were on the wiki article and was a self-selected sample addressed to visitors of swinger-related sites. Though 60% said it had improved their relationship, this number seems rather low considering you would think that only couples whose relationship had improved would actually continue to frequent such sites. There is no way of knowing what percentage tried it, discovered they hated it and that it damaged their relationship, so left the sites never to return.

[Miles]

The whole issue of morality comes down to one's personal moral code, regardless of its origin. If swinging and swapping violates the code then they are immoral within that framework. If one's morals are such that swinging and swapping do not qualify as immoral then, of course, they're not. Personally, I go along with achilles here and agree that so long as what you do harms none, do what you will.

So, I see no argument over the morality of swinging and swapping; your system of morals may condemn it while mine may not. Case closed.

What I see as far more interesting is the basis of one's moral code, irrespective of the issues it's applied to.

We all have a personal moral code.
But are you suggesting that there is no basis for shared or possibly objective morality?

Not at all.

All morality is private or socially constructed?

Not sure what you're saying here, but I will say that morality is "private or socially constructed."

Even sociobiologists argue for more than that. Personal morality theory begs the question how how civil society is possible.

"Sociobiologists"? I don't believe they address issues of morality. In any case, I do agree that societies exist because of ethical considerations.

[Flail]

If no laws are broken and all are consenting adults then I don't have a problem with any of it nor is such activity between consenting adults any of my business. There are more important issues to consider in the world.