This exploratory study used qualitative methods to gain a richer understanding of the relational dynamics in modern swinging relationships. Swinging was defined at the onset of the study as sexual activities that married couples engage in with people other than their spouses. Twenty people (10 couples) volunteered and were interviewed using computer-mediated communication. Symbolic interactionism provides the theoretical framework for the study. Within the construct of relational dynamics, themes of power and decision making, commitment to swinging, and privacy about swinging emerged.
AtwaterL. (1982). The extramarital connection: Sex, intimacy, and identity. New York, NY: Irvington.
2.
BergstrandC.WilliamsJ. B. (2000). Today’s alternative marriage styles: The case of swingers. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 3, 1–11.
3.
ColeC. L.SpanierG. B. (1973). Induction into mate-swapping: A review. Family Process, 12, 279–290.
4.
CooleyC. H. (1956). Human nature and social order. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
DenfeldD. (1975). Swinging: The search for an alternative. In GrossL. (Ed.), Sexual issues in marriage (pp. 217–230). New York, NY: Spectrum.
7.
FangB. (1976). Swinging: In retrospect. The Journal of Sex Research, 12, 220–237.
8.
FoucaultM. (1981). The history of sexuality. Volume 1: An introduction. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
9.
FrisdlE. (1994). Sex the invisible. American Anthropologist, 96, 833–844.
10.
GiddensA. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love & eroticism in modern societies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
11.
GoslingS.VazireS.SrivastavaS.JohnO. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59, 93–104.
12.
GouldT. (1999). The lifestyle: A look at the erotic rites of swingers. New York, NY: Firefly Books.
13.
HeaveyC. L.LayneC.ChristensenA. (1993). Gender and conflict structure in marital intercourse: A replication and extension. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 16–27.
14.
HenshelA. (1973). Swinging: A study of decision making in marriage. The American Journal of Sociology, 78, 885–891.
15.
JenksR. J. (1985). A comparative study of swingers and nonswingers: Attitudes and beliefs. Lifestyles: A Journal of Changing Patterns, 7, 5–20.
16.
JenksR. J. (1998). Swinging: A review of the literature. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 507–521.
17.
KaneE. W.SchippersM. (1996). Menís and women’s beliefs about gender and sexuality. Gender and Society, 10, 650–665.
KomterA. (1989). Hidden power in marriage. Gender and Society, 3, 187–216.
20.
LaRossaR.ReitzesD. C. (1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In BengstonV. L.AcockA. C.AllenK. R.Dilworth-AndersonP.KleinD. M. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 135–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73–84.
22.
MacklinE. D. (1980). Nontraditional family forms: A decade of research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 905–922.
23.
MannC.StewartF. (2003). Internet interviewing. In HolsteinJ. A.GubriumJ. F. (Eds.), Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns (pp. 241–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
McCormickN. B.JesserC. J. (1983). The courtship game: Power in the sexual encounter. In AllgeierE. R.McCormickN. B. (Eds.), Changing boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior (pp. 64–86). New York, NY: Mayfield.
25.
MeadG. H. (1956). On social psychology: Selected papers. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
MichaelR. T.GagnonJ. H.LaumannE. O.KolataG. (1994). Sex in America: A definitive survey. New York, NY: Little, Brown, & Company.
27.
North American Swing Club Association International. (2003, December). What is swinging?[Frequently asked questions]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nasca.com/states/nasca_faq.thml
OswaldR. F.BlumeL. B.MarksS. R. (2005). Decentering heteronormativity: A model for family studies. In BengstonV. L.AcockA. C.AllenK. R.Dilworth-AndersonP.KleinD. M. (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 143–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
PhilaretouA. G. (2004). The perils of masculinity: An autobiographical analysis of male sexual anxiety, sexual addiction, and relational abuse. New York, NY: University Press of America.
32.
RameyJ. W. (1972). Intimate groups and networks: Frequent consequences of sexually open marriage. The Family Coordinator, 24, 515–530.
33.
RubinR. H. (2001). Alternative lifestyles revisited, or whatever happened to swingers, group marriages, and communes?Journal of Family Issues, 22, 711–727.
34.
SprecherS.FelmleeD. (1997). The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over time from “his” and “her” perspectives. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 37, 361–380.
35.
SpreyJ. (1999). Family dynamics: An essay on conflict and power. In SussmanM.SteinmetzS. K.PetersonG. W. (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 667–685). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
36.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
StrykerS. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version. Reading, MA: Benjamin/Cummings.
38.
SymondsC. (1971). Sexual mate swapping and the swingers. Marriage Counseling Quarterly, 6, 1–12.
39.
SzinovaczM. E.EgleyL. C. (1995). Comparing one-partner and couple data on sensitive marital behaviors: The case of marital violence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 995–1010.
40.
ThompsonL.WalkerA. J. (1982). The dyad as the unit of analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 44, 889–900.
41.
van Eeden-MoorefieldB.ProulxC. (2009). Doing feminist research on gay men in cyberspace. In LloydS.FewA.AllenK. (Eds.), Handbook of feminist family studies (pp. 220–233). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
VarniC. A. (1974). An exploratory study of spouse swapping. In SmithJ. R.SmithL. G. (Eds.), Beyond monogamy (pp. 214–229). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
43.
YinR. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 58–65.
44.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
