ideal:
Call me prude, but I make it a point to never have sex with more than ten people a night.
Seriously, I can't even imagine the appeal here. All I can think is that it's not so much a sign of a healthy sexual appetite but more evidence of severe sexual issues.
Perhaps that would be best suited for another thread though.
Well, I ain't a prude, but I can't have sex with even ten ladies in a night, very few men can.
Women, on the otherhand, aren't limited as us men are. Most women don't have the inclination, but it wouldn't take a very large percentage of women that have the inclination to service all available men.
Many men and women though, would have no inclination for such sexual activities which is why in an are of 2,000,000 peope, there are only 2 on site swing clubs, and even on the Yahoo groups there is only a small fraction of the local population represented there.
But there also may be many more people who have such inclinations that are still repressing them because of what they believe society would think.
I, on the other hand have very little respect for the theories that ( if you could call them theories, becuase social mores are transmitted through unconscious means, such as religion which give them a mystical aura and therefore exempt them from questioning) support our system of social mores, for it is more about regulating sex for breeding and disdain for pleasure.
A real insight to how malevolent our system of sexual mores are can be read in two books I can think of.
1st book supports our system of female sexual regulation, which I have stated elsewhere I consider anti-huministic and malevolent, is called "The Garbage Generation" by Daniel Amnius. Though I dissagree with his premises, he does a good job trying to define the system on the conscious ( as opposed to the unconscious, or bi-cameral) level.
2nd book is much closer to my philosophy is "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell which he also explains our system of social mores and has ideas of how to transcend it. Once again, I don't agree with everything in his book, but it is a far more benevolent pro sex and pro true gender equility philosophy than Amnius who wants to turn the clock back.
Both books state that one of the main pillars is the double standard. Amnius actualy thinks that forcing men to work for sex, through making both men and women waite until marriage is what made civilization possible. Perhaps, that is just like saying the rooster crowing is what makes the sunrise possible.
Also, Amnius thinks we need a double standard because "a woman always knows that she is the mother of a baby she has, but the only way a man knows that he is the father is by forcing the woman to be monogomous". So, his premise is that it is far less harmful if a man wanders a bit, but not for the woman. A side affect of the double standard is you have more men looking than women at anytime, therefore creating a virtual shortage of sexual partners for men, making more likely that sex will translate into something that men have to pay for.
One can see that if more women would say "f *** the double standard, I have as much right to sexual fulfillment as men" than that would be a powerful tool in facilitating the collapse of 5,000 year old system that has resulted in overpopulation and depletion of the resources of this planet.
Women who are sexually free tend to be, on average, less likely to want to be pregnant very much, or in many cases ever at all.
Also, if even a small percentage of women "go overboard" on sexual gratification, like 5% who like to have 20 men twice a week, than that would translate in 100% of the men in the population.
The above is the little secret of nature that sexual/cultural conservatives are scarred s***less about, and it might reflect subconsious envy of many men of lower sexual nature. The fact that men can dream about having 20 different partners in an evening but can't perform up to that, and women can dream about it and do it, plus many more in some cases.