Will Swingers Become a Protected Class?

Ann Carriage
4 min readJul 19, 2019

Swingers, that vague 1970’s code name defining non-monogamous relationships like spouse swapping and group sex, fashioned in the aftermath of the 1960’ sexual revolution is back, this time with some major tweaking.

The emphasis is now on consensual non-monogamous sex like that in polygamy and wait for it, adultery.

Adultery is a biggie that has never met with societal approval but for a growing number of married men, agreeing to other men having sexual relations with their wives while taking on the role of observers is now something of a fetish, with online communities devoted to this inclination mushrooming all over the place.

The reasons for the rise in consensual voyeuristic adultery have been ascribed to latent bisexuality in men, as well as male feminists, too personally invested, and overeager to celebrate their wives sexual liberation.

But most of all it’s a reaction against one of society’s last taboos with an about twist, where cuckoldry is no longer viewed as humiliating but erotic.

Enter the American Psychological Association

Now that bastion of U.S. mental health, the American Psychological Association has appointed a task force to advocate for open relationships of all kinds.

The Association stressed that the ability to engage in desired intimacy without social and medical stigmatization is not a liberty for all.

Saying people who practice “consensual non-monogamy,” are unduly “marginalized,” and it’s time, they argue, to promote awareness and inclusivity for people who practice “polyamory, open relationships, swinging, relationship anarchy and other types of ethical, non-monogamous relationships.”

The APA claims it is time to examine our biases and take a non-judgmental posture toward people engaged in consensual non-monogamy — just as with LGBTQ.

All right, the above speech was addressed to psychologists treating patients involved in these relationships, basically accusing them of harboring judgmental attitudes.

But, are you reading between the lines yet?

But where is this leading?

If we are ‘woke’ enough we have to question the overall intentions of the APA, where is this leading, is this the beginning of another socio-political movement, with the main aim to fight for the protected legal status of swingers.

Indeed it would appear so, with the operative words being ‘social stigmatization’ with the largest medical association in the country leading the way.

As someone pointed out, the APA is a professional guild made up of 100 000 plus members who didn’t have a say in the decision to form a task force to probe this topic.

Without a mandate it was decided by a small number of political activists looking to influence society from the top down because they realize they are out of step with majority public opinion.

The APA task force has been allocated a budget of $100 million towards its work and you can be sure this will be used at educational level to begin changing perceptions and by extension, societal norms.

A recent Gallup poll on moral acceptability rated adultery and polygamy as morally wrong at 89% and 80% respectively.

Only nine percent of the country agrees with the APA that fidelity is somehow narrow-minded or passé.

The multiple-spouse relationship has slightly more support at 18 percent.

However the head of the task force is concerned about the lack of support this community receives saying; too many clients, who are in consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships, have to educate their therapists. Too many of them discontinue therapy because their therapist judged them, didn’t know enough about CNM to be helpful, or worse, makes actively stigmatizing comments…”

So just what does the APA mean by relationship anarchy and how do they define ethical, non-monogamous relationships.

As suspected the relationship anarchy movement has its roots in the free love movement of the 20th century.

It’s all about breaking down traditional boundaries doing away with distinctions between sexual, romantic or platonic relationships.

Think about the original swingers as an example of what is meant by this supposed separation, sexual liaisons without the emotional aspect, but how do they think ‘emotional’ adultery begins a lot of the time.

Why through sexual intimacy, duh.

Basically relationship anarchists believe interactions between people shouldn’t be governed by traditional rules only the rules agreed upon by the people involved in any given relationship.

Can non-monogamous relationships be ethical?

According to talking points the basis for an ethical relationship is consent.

The definition of ethical is when all partners and players involved in various relationships consent, and observe boundaries.

And that’s basically it.

The irony is people who vouch for this ‘no personal rules stuff’ are blind to the matrix they live in which regulates them within an inch of their lives, and they can’t see the hidden hand pushing all this either, and why.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.



Ann Carriage

Political animal, interested in the story behind the story. A concepts driven individual.