Dance is the only kind of Swingin’ for me…

We all try to take bits and pieces of the things we learn, apply them to our own lives, and then move on. This approach works, so long as we’re able to extract the right bits and pieces. If someone says “the key to fitness is going to the gym and lifting weights,” you could skim off “going to the gym,” as that’s inessential, but you can’t ignore the “lifting weights.” That’s a simple example, but sometimes it’s not so easy.

Take a comprehensive workout regimen like the now-popular Body for Life plan. It recommends eating six meals per day, each with one carbohydrate and one protein portion… along with a vegetable portion at least twice per day. In addition to that, one is supposed to do 3 days of intense 20-minute cardio- and 3 days of 50 minute resistance-training. Then Sunday one takes off both the diet and the exercising. But how many variables can one adjust in order to follow the plan? They say a portion is one fist-full, but that doesn’t even come close to covering it for me. And what if I eat a lot of carbs for meal 1 and lots of protein for meal 2? What if the only type of fat I’m trying to watch is saturated fat? What if I want to do cardio based on my dance schedule (which is hardly 3 days/week or 20 minutes long) and rotate my lifting (which is usually more than 50 minutes) around that? There are a lot of variables and a lot of choices, and I think I’ve figured out the essential elements: eating right and resting between muscle groups… but then again, I don’t know. And this is still an easier example.

My topic for today is the “swinging” relationship phenomenon. I had a long conversation about this yesterday. Referencing Stranger in a Strange Land, my friend felt that it might be moral to have sexual relations with multiple people while maintaining some sort of spiritual and intellectual commitment to a single individual. Now I disagree with that for a lot of reasons… but what I want to bring up is that the reference was an unfair one.

In Stranger, the protagonist advocates a communal living where there are no commitments and sex serves as the ultimate symbol of closeness for the citizens. In this way of life, sex is important and essential, though it must be proceeded by an intense spiritual and emotional connection.

But the “swinging” relationship that my friend brought up assumes physical contact to be separate from these other elements. In addition, the end that sex would meet is fulfillment of desire, so as to relieve tension in the committed relationship in which one’s hypothetically involved.

These two situations are very much opposed to one another: in one case sex is placed on a spiritual pedestal, on another it’s considered a physical need; in one there is neither monogamy nor commitment within the circle, in the other there is a clearly defined and seemingly inviolable spiritual commitment to one partner. And yet the latter situation was deduced as acceptable from the former.

Then again, if I stop there I’m not being fair to my friend. One of the chief goals behind Stranger’s plan is to eliminate sexual jealousy. In this community where everyone shares partners, there is complete equality amongst the citizens… and even more, people supposedly are happier living much less stressful lives.

Something similar applies to my friend’s approach. She claims that by sharing sexual partners that will alleviate jealousy. And it will, when it comes to sex. No longer would sex be considered as the distinguishing factor between friendships and relationships. Instead, the focus could be on other elements.

But it’s still not that easy. By removing sexual jealousy (if such a thing is possible), there still remains the possibility for other forms of covet. Any type of committed relationship always opens the door to jealousy. By removing sex from the equation, there’ll be jealousy but no way of proving your commitment. Or maybe there will, but it’ll be less tangible and more difficult.

I just find a lot of difficulty in the idea that more sex will take the focus away from it. Sometimes that’s just the sort of paradox that works. Then again there are tons of cultural elements that make the idea difficult to swallow.

While there may be merit in the “swinging” approach, I don’t see it. And I definitely don’t think Robert Heinlein advocated it in Stranger in a Strange Land. I’m interested in some feedback on this though…