about done with single males

“And when the argument of married/partnered men is that single men have nothing to trade, that is precisely the same sort of entitlement to women's bodies. And it's wrong.“

GGMM: Let’s do the PC dance then. Well, Since I am NOT bi, I can safely excuse myself the part of the equation that they are going to be wanting and fucking me, so I can, at this point, safely assume they are after my spouse, The Mrs. At that point, what is the barter? Nothing, there is none.

1) Swinging is bartering/trading of spouses ie, FOR BOTH male and female; making the male a bargaining chip as well.

2) If you are single, you are not swinging and you have nothing to barter/trade. You are hooking up. Fact.

Disclaimer: The use of the work “hooking” is not meant to represent not be construed as prostitution.

Thicker skin this way ->

~Allen

Apparently we make our minds up much more quickly in Washington than they do in Georgia. ;-)

"The single male has nothing to offer to the husband." And: "But single females aren't looked at in this light. They aren't judged for not bringing a male."

I think that first one is spot on. Incorrect for a lot of reasons, but certainly an underlying reason for some of the scorn heaped on the heads of single men in the lifestyle. As to not being judged for not bringing a man, you're right that there is no singles penalty for women. That's likely because women are a necessary part of the Lowest Common Denominator fantasy, the FMF, and there are fewer of us who are willing to be openly, avowedly slutty. Also, economically, there is still a wage gap between men and women and single women would be scarce if they had to pay the couples' rate.

The local (and by local, I mean 100 miles south of me) club allows unlimited men on Wednesdays and single women are free. They say they get about 90 people every week, which doesn't surprise me. I used to attend a club that had the same policy on Wednesdays. It was a bit of a sausage fest, but it was also fun and very strictly monitored, plus a lot of the same people were there week after week, so it always felt safe. The club is gender balanced on all other nights, except for the once a month gang bang event. I think it's a terrific compromise for a club and seems to be working for them.

I love when intellect rears it’s beautiful head.

To be clear, pricing doesn’t limit the number of males, it’s the price of coming alone as a single male. 10 males @ $60 a pop and 10 males @ $120 a pop: is still 10 males.

As Molly pointed out, if women are the commodity, and trade isn’t possible for a single guy, then the guy has nothing to offer.

But nothing to offer to whom, is the question?

To the party? To the wife? No.

The single male has nothing to offer to the husband.

This is twisted in a sense but please follow.

If the seller (husband) has a product (wife) that he’s willing to barter, then the buyer (single male) must have something of value to barter (female) with.

Without a female to barter, the buyer cannot get the wife. It’s the marketplace.

The LS treats single males as buyers in a sense. A single male should have not to offer himself to another male, he should be offering his presence to the party.

Husbands are looking at single males to offer them women (pussy).

There was a statement saying that single men can go to bars and lick up women with no isse but that married men would catch hell if they did. But I find that hard to believe if you’re picking up girls to take back home to play with your wife and you?

Parties limit men to maintain the offset, that’s all. Husbands want to have fun, single males can’t bring it, because of that single males are seen as dysfunctional or weird because they can’t find a woman to bring to a party.

But single females aren’t looked at in this light. They aren’t judged for not bringing a male. They’re unicorns apparently. In that regard, females pay less because they are perceived to bring more value to a party than a male.

But what’s the difference?

HV

"...I'm going to pull a Tramp..."

I was just telling Lady today, "I'm really starting to like this gal!"

Tramp

I agree, Tramp. We all only bring ourselves.

"AS far as the women who want some action not the case. The males do have something."

Oh, I totally agree that men, regardless of relationship status, have something to offer. I would also argue that single men have value that is often overlooked (and I have a theory about why, but I'm going to pull a Tramp and not tell). It's probably not a secret to any man who swings that women are generally much harder to wear out than men and while the correct ratio of men to women varies from woman to woman, it's more than 1:1. So a party that is just couples and single women is going to be...fairly uninteresting for some number of women.

And, yes, I'm all for screening in some way that isn't merely financial, but that's harder to do. It's easier to gauge actual interest by making the fee for a single man equal that of couples and it makes sense on several levels to charge single women half the couple's rate or less.

"Because if the commodity is pussy, then regardless of marital status, men don't have shit."
As far as most men are concerned exactly so.

AS far as the women who want some action not the case. The males do have something.

Thing is there are more of the male and less of the female in the mix.
So If the male is the consumer the value of the female is higher than if the female is the consumer.

I as a married male like some singles around because at times a MFM is just what is desired and that is easier than arranging a simultaneous FMF to free up the extra guy.
That still makes the male a low value entity, because fewer want MFM than want straight swap.

Thing is most of the single males can still freely cruise singles bars with no problem.
Most of us married guys would have our nads handed to us in a paper cup for the same thing. It should all even out.

If pricing is just a way of limiting single males and if it works , then it is a way of working out the problem. Not sure it is the best way but it is a way.
I think it is better by invite or sponsorship only, for parties and takeovers as far as bringing in single males, that way the singles who are just trolling or can not behave themselves disappear.

MsMolly, I've got to agree with you on this one.

In fact, you'll never ever hear me so much as refer to myself as sharing Lady with others. Since I (nor anyone else whom I'm aware of) don't own Lady, I can't share her...nor she me.

It's just a fine point with me, and I understand most people don't take that phrase literally.

As for myself, I pretty much value the folks we encounter (male or female) on a level field. The females are less in number, but no more or less valuable than their counterparts in my book. And certainly visa versa.

As far as bringing something to the club, the only thing that I bring is me. Lady's is always with me, but she brings her own stuff to the party...not me. ;^)

Tramp

"Apologies if it offended you and I knew it would not appeal to all audiences.. To analyze it and break it down to specifics, there is no trade because “they” have nothing for exchange, therefore without exchange, no market commodity can be established."

I wasn't offended, but I am bothered by the idea that women - or, as you put it earlier, pussy, which really lowers it all the way down to basics - are a commodity that can be traded like soybeans, something that married men have and single men do not. That commodification of women is exactly why some single men feel entitled to women's bodies when they pay a premium price for clubs and parties. And when the argument of married/partnered men is that single men have nothing to trade, that is precisely the same sort of entitlement to women's bodies. And it's wrong.

Because if the commodity is pussy, then regardless of marital status, men don't have shit.

Then of course, you have the crowd type that no matter what you say or how you say anything, they remain obliviously blissfully self admitted illiterate trolls.

GG,

Allen is just a touch saner than Nutcal, but just a touch. He is also living in a fantasy world where he believes he is intelligent, funny and interesting. He uses a thesaurus to look up big words then uses them incorrectly providing hours of entertainment. At least, it used to be amusing.

He blocked me months ago when he kept trying to one-up me and all I did was kept correcting his grammar, spelling, and syntax. It was hilarious but alas, I can no longer read his idiotic posts. I do hear that he occasionally flails away at trying to insult me in absentia, I might have to start paying rent for all the space I occupy in his head. Pretty sure based on the location, it is pretty low rent. ;^D

~S~

GGMM: In short, when things need to be said, they need to be said at the level of the audience one’s trying to make a point with. Apologies if it offended you and I knew it would not appeal to all audiences.. To analyze it and break it down to specifics, there is no trade because “they” have nothing for exchange, therefore without exchange, no market commodity can be established. We know obviously they are there for the women, not the male half of a couple. If couples get charged for two count, then there are going to be a bunch of cock holding jocks playing with themselves, as pointed out.

Anyway, the single male you named had that same single male arrogant expectancy as you mention and an accompanying chronic whine, but in the thread I mentioned blocking him in , before admins locked it. Nuff said of that.

~Allen

Single men expect to get laid for the money they paid, any in shape woman attracts so much attention from single men that she feels like a piece of meat.

Women want to be worshiped as sex goddess, which is the way it used to be by the married men who got plenty of sex from their swinger wives.

This is what single men destroyed. Because the women dont get the worship that they so love,whcih used to be want swinging was about for them, they have dropped out of swinging. The married men also took the time and effort to learn sexual skills to make those women they worshiped very happy. Sex was fun, never in a hurry, all about pleasure for the woman.

Single men expect the sex to be about their pleasure, so many dont even care if the woman cums. Single men also fuck women like they see in porn, why in the world would any woman who has been worshiped as a sex goddess want to be violently pounded by single men?

Women are swingers so they will be worshiped by men who treat them as sex goddess and make the sex all about their pleasure. Those days are now long gone.

Eh. I don't believe ncal is here for the attention he gets from his wackadoodle posts. I think he'd keep posting from now until the heat death of the universe even if nobody ever talked to him, because here is where he shores up the fantasy that he's an early-50s swinger with an attractive wife. Since those things aren't true, it takes regular infusions of the fantasy.

Allen, there's something about that bringing the pussy thing that bothers me. It's not a surprise and I've heard it a lot from the male halves of couples, but it sees women as commodities to trade. It's also the corollary to what HungVet correctly pointed out as an attitude of entitlement in some single men, who think they should get value for their money, in this case pussy as commodity. So, is it just a guy thing?

I’ll take the advice, and leave the food on the table lol

HV,

Logic has no place in any debate involving the Nutcal. To borrow a line or two from a favorite movie, "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia"". The second most famous around these parts is trying to engage in intelligent conversation with Nutcal. He lacks the ability to reevaluate and adjust his position when faced with a logical reason to do so.

He is only here for the attention he gets from his wackadoodle posts.

BT

Admittedly, I'm guilty of feeding the troll and should take my own advice.

Ncalcouple there’s a problem with that “because of all those single men no one plays” statement, especially when referring to the Vegas swinger club scene.

Red Rooster only allows single men on Fridays and Saturdays, yet it is open everyday of the week, closed on Sunday, and Thursday is ladies night. Couples have 4 days out of the week to themselves to play. What would be the hold up to play then?

On Friday’s and Saturday’s when men are allowed, what then is the hold up for couples to play? If you know the layout, you know there is a couples only area upstairs, (where singles have to be invited to join), 5 or 6 private rooms, and one voyeur room. Jacuzzi and pool in the back and shower for play. People walking around naked/topless at that club is a normal. Lol

Purrfect Parties allows men, but its a just a vanilla party at an upscale location, where proper classy attire is important. The owner (I know personally) charges men $120 online/$160 at the door of the night of, because that’s how she believes it’s a way to weed out low quality men. i disagree, but that’s me No playing at all. After-parties are maybe twice in two months, and there you have the chance of playing on a sold out floor of a on-the-strip hotel.

SwingersCircle is just for couples and females. No men allowed. What’s the hang up?

Green Door is pure voyeur, but even it has its private rooms. And I think on some days men are not welcomed.

From what I see with some couples is the idea of being the third wheel. If the wife has a guy, the husband must have a girl, to even things out. Couple with couple. “You sleep with my wife, I sleep with yours”.

More single men means that she has more opportunity to play, which puts the lifestyle in her favor. As a husband you may not have that much luck considering the number of females present. Which may explain writings in some profiles that say “we only play with couples”. Yet many couples can attest to the fact that being to have all 4 individuals vibing together on the same page with equal total attraction, is a real doozy.

Which is understandable. No one wants to be left out, but the situation you reported is not a single male centered problem. If you want to play with a couple, play with a couple. A single male can’t inhibit your play. Lol

HV

“Course, it could all just be an urban legend...”

Hey, I resemble that remark!

~S~

"HungVet, arguing with ncal is a lot like trying to use a nail gun on jello."

The same can be said about this guy, been there, done that on the "website forums" , he tries to twists shit around when his ass is being handed to him for his arrogance, plus he believes he is deserving of all pussy, so glad I blocked that one.

"its tough to break in with clubs overcharging"

Boofuckinghoo........

Some of you fuckers still don't get it. Couples pay as much as single males to get into clubs, yet we're bringing the pussy. Shout out to us!.... or you'd just have a bunch of cock snot jubilee.

:-)

~Allen

Hungvet my dear your wasting your time trying to reason with the forum killing troll of swinglifestyle . He is the biggest idiot on these forums and has been . Killed every thread here with his ridiculous spewing thoughts . Once he starts commenting that thread that thread becomes dead . Read them all and see lmao ! Its best to not feed trolls and let them be or they just keep going and going . He knows nothing about how to succeed in this lifestyle or probably even life itself . Forums here used to be great until Nutcal became a member here and has pretty much ruined these for everyone to the point people won't even get on them anymore ! You seem great keep doing as your doing and you will be fine in the lifestyle .

I’m not arguing with Ncalcouple, I’m merely explaining to him that it may not be exactly how he sees it.

He sees thirsty single men ruining a sacred entity. What he may not see is how the environment (which couples run) fuel it.

I’ll explain and I’ll not try not to be too deep:

Our society places price and value hand in hand. This thinking corrupts many aspects of life, and sex is one of them. You tell a man to pay more, he’s going to want more. Value isn’t placed on the environment or people he’s going to meet at a party, value is placed on the cost he had to pay to experience the people and the environment. Same with porn or prostitution (don’t get too focused on these just see the connection), the more you pay the more you desire or feel entitled to. Which explains why most men feel this way in the LS.

Hopefully I didn’t lose you there. Due to the unequal value (price) placed on the same experience (going to a swingers club), those paying more are going to want to play more, see more, and be involved more.

Those who may not understand this, will become those single males we all hear about. But those who know the difference, and are able to get past it will last.

It’s simple understanding of the environment in its entirety, and not only for its face value.

If this concept was changed in the LS (somehow, where paying didn’t put value on the experience), things would change for the better, but until then....

HV

Because of all the single men in all those Vegas clubs no one plays, most real swingers avoid those clubs. Craigslist was the place real swingers used to get together because they had a couple only section.
Now that Craigslist is gone we shall see what replaces it. Anything that is couples only.

Shout out to HungVet. As a legitimate single male wanting to get into the lifestyle, its tough to break in with clubs overcharging and the stigma that single males have. I just wanna have fun like the couples! Lol

HungVet, arguing with ncal is a lot like trying to use a nail gun on jello. Lime green jello with shredded Oreos, some black olives, and a garnish of sardines. Actually, that combination makes about a thousand times more sense than ncal.

So, carry on, warrior, but it's a waste of time and he's commonly referred to as Nutcal for good and sufficient reason.

Ncalcouple:
You just described “supply and demand”.

Couples throwing parties figured out that men would more pay for the same environment that couples and females were paying less for.

But do you honestly believe that men ‘wanted’ to pay more to go to these parties? Of course not.

This is the narrative they received: If you want to come, knowing that you are not a couple, or a female or a priority at this party, you must pay more.

Guess what: they pay more not to be snuffed out of the experience. Not because they want to pay the ridiculous surcharge of being a single male.

Single males just wanted the same experience as couples and females, but what they brought to the table could not compare to what a couple or female brought. The only way to even out the lack of females (not present) was for single guys to fit the bill and pay more.

Now you’re in Vegas with clubs like the Red Rooster, Green Door, Purrfect Parties and Swingers Circle, (I know because I’ve lived there), all have nights for single males except Swingers Circle (if I remember correctly) and they charge the males more than the couples and females. I never liked the voyeur vibe of the Green Door

Pricing for males is just an offset, for not bringing a woman to the party. Proof of that is when a single male brings a woman, the price is greatly reduced to the couples’ rate, even though he’s a single male.

So technically if single males brought single females/other men’s wives as dates to clubs, the “club hungry for money” theory, goes out the window.

HV

Hung not quite, when SLS and then other sites started to allow parties to advertise on their sites, some of the people putting on the parties started charging and found that single men would pay huge money They also found that they could let in unscreened couples and all of sudden the parties had lots of drama.

Then lots of commercial money grubbing people started having parties only to make as much money as possible.. The private groups that did not advertise all of a sudden found that that many couples just started dropping out of swinging because they did not know what to expect anymore or where just so disgusted . New couples where so traumatized by all the single men at the clubs or party that they first went too that they never went beyond that first club or party, which means they would never could referred into a private group.

This is what killed swinging. The last of the private couples only groups in N Cal when we left had trouble getting ten couples to show up for a party. No new couples in many years. We used to have parties where everyone was naked and playing of between 30 and 50 couples with 10 to 15 new couples at each party.

Today go to any club and the single men out number the women by three or four times. Its all about greed, women are not in swinging for someone to make money off of their bodies.