Poll: Would you particpate in a sexual threesome?
For someone who's already a sexual outlaw, I'm awfully prudish about my expressions of sexual love.
For me, Sex is about love. Anything else is just complex masturbation, and I can do that by myself and not have to make my bed or breakfast. :-)
Well, nothing. What I object to, though, is the involvement of other people. With me, there is no such thing as "meaningless sex." I just can't imagine myself being in a situation where opening myself up (shut up.) that much to a person without some kind of deeper relationship would make any sense.
Plus, I am shell-shocked enough from the more mundane two-party romantic relationships to realize that for me, at least, adding a third (or more) party/ies exponentially increases the level of complexity, and the number of things that can go critical at any moment for any reason.
Of course, who the hell said human relationships have anything to do with sense.
do you think it is impossible to have a deep emotional connection to more than one person? Why does the idea of a threesome for you immediately suggest "meaningless sex?"
Excellent question. Thank you Gella! I think I would have failed to notice that little assumption and let it slide by, but you are SOOOO right. Why would 3 way sex necessarily be empty in any of its aspects?
<shrug> I don't think it's possible for me to have a deep emotional connection to more than one person. Is it possible for some people? Sure.
I don't know where my neuroses come from. I would imagine something in my early childhood. THe funny part is that I buy into society's whole "two people in a marriage for the rest of time" model, even though we see how well that (didn't) work out for my 'rents.
Please understand, I'm not attacking anyone who finds x-somes to be meaningful experiences. I'm just saying that for me, I suspect that they would not be.
I'm with you, Michael. I think part of what makes a deep emotional connection deeply emotional is that it's (for lack of a better word) special. I guess I feel like it loses some of its weight if you can feel it for more than one person. At least for me, I don't see how that could not lead to jealousy/bitterness.....
That doesn't make nearly as much sense as it did in my head...
I'm sure there are some people who can feel deeply emotional about multiple people at the same time, but that's foreign to me. I cannot imagine feeling the same deep level of love for my fiance with anyone else at the same time.
To me, my fiance is my highest reverence and my highest value. I don't see how I can have the same thing with another person at the same time.
Plus, to me, sex is something special, something intimate to be shared with someone you love. Again, I know others feel that level of commitment with multiple people. I agree with Micahel on this one though.
Yeah, I had friends in VT who had a three-person relationship.... or... well, moreso an open relationship.
The couple, Mike and Nancy, were married... had a child, etc... but Nancy was also dating another guy.
It was interesting.
Seemed to work for them, but I know it would never work for me.
i would probably argue against you... but i'm not sure, let me check... oh, yes, I would. :)
Personally, I think at least a couple of the answers were pretty open ended as far as meaningless vs. emotional goes... like, for example, the specific people option. That one doesn't really hold an implication either way, in my reading... those specific people may well mean specific people that you have a deep emotional connection to. That is what I read in it for myself, anyway.
I didn't mean to imply anything one way or the other. If you wan't meaningless sex, fine. If not, also fine. The poly one was just because I wanted to cover every base I could think of. My supposition was kind of that the typical situation were two people in a couple, one of them possibly somewhat bi. Whe added a third person who was probably a friend, but could be someone who was "picked up" , or someone who was also in some kind of deeper relationship. You can think about it however it suites you.
Yeah. I don't think the poll is necessarily written that way, but something in my brain, when talking about polyamory, automatically hits the "meaningless sex" button. Maybe it's because I've never known anyone who was in a long term, supportive polyamorous relationship.
Which, I hasten to add, does not mean that one is impossible. Just that I have yet to see it.
Polyamorists always hasten to point out that they don't engage in meaningless sex. That is exactly the point of polyamory--loving many. They don't NEED meaningless sex because they get all the meaningfull sex they can handle. :)
There are plenty of people in polyamorous relationships. It doesn't mean that all aspects of those relatinships are static or unchanging. People come and go and change their status as lovers, but the relationships do work.
I don't believe in the necessity of imposed exclusivity in relationships. (I also don't believe in Relationships [capital R] either, but that's another poll.) I am with Michael in that there is no such thing as "meaningless sex" for me, but I don't think that deep emotional connection with one person excludes the possibility of the same with others. That said, It would take two *very special* people and a great deal of trust, but I would not at all be closed to the idea.
well, i added in the "imposed" because someone might try to argue that any situation in which only two people are involved can be called exclusive and that I am in effect saying that all relationships must involve more than two parties, or require that those parties go out and hook up with others with some sort of regularity.
Of course they would be wrong, but I think you'll appreciate that I have taken to trying to cover all bases at once wherever possible.
Josh Woodward · 18 years ago
When I first saw this poll, I had just been reading the thread about FruCon activity ideas. Draw your own conclusions. :)
LOL! Is that going to be one of the activities at the con? :D
Then Maybe I'll go! =D
Misch · 18 years ago
Woo hoo! New poll! New topic! One I can really sink my... umm... yeah... into... umm... yeeeeeeeah. We'll just go ahead and do that... that'd be greaaaaat.
Well, perhaps....but apparently there are some who would just consider it meaningless sex.
There are a LOT of people who would consider it that, actually.
There are many people in the world who have no problem with sex for the sake of sex.
I, personally, don't see the appeal... but... I know people who do.
I don't think there's anything inherent about 3-party-sex that makes it meaningless any more than there's anything inherent about 2-party-sex that makes it meaningful.
I do, however, believe that a 3-party relationship is fundamentally less stable and more chaos-prone than a 2-party relationship. I mean, we live in a society where 50% of all state-sanctioned two-party relationships are projected to end in divorce. You mean to tell me that adding another person into that mix isn't courting disaster?
Oh, well, I wasn't referring to THAT>.. I was referring to paul sinking in to something/someone. :D
Oh, I know... But I just like the sound of my own voice, and replied to a post at random. :-)
"I mean, we live in a society where 50% of all state-sanctioned two-party relationships are projected to end in divorce."
That doesn't suggest to you that perhaps the state sanctioned hetero-two-party-system doesn't necessarily work as well as certain people would like to believe?
*sigh* I just came from a family event [read: funeral] where more than half of the couples present were divorced. It was very nice to see the exes there and being friendly and supportive and it really was a wonderful demonstration of how divorces *should* be... but seeing that just really reinforces my feeling that none of them have any solid point on which to base any assertion that their way is necessarily better than mine.
No one is attacking you, Gella. I sense that you yearn to see me as your opressor, but it just ain't so. During every part of this conversation, I have been most careful to state that every one of my statements is my opinion. I never said or intended to imply that what's right for me is right for anyone else.
You're the first one to say the word "better" as a value judgement in this conversation. I honestly don't even know where you got that from.
Michael... I in no way see you as an attacker. Not at all. Quite the contrary. The use of the word better in this context was in reference to my family specifically.
I am just asking you your opinion... i truly find it curious that your lack of faith in the conventional institution of marriage would lead you *away* from the (theoretical) consideration that the "poly" route might have some more merit than many would like to believe.
Honestly, I have no idea where that comes from...I would imagine it has to do with my mother. I never did get the attention and affection from her that I was dearly craving because she was too involved with her relationship with alcohol to bother much with me.
See, what makes me think of that is that I see my ideal relationship being uniqyue--in much the same way that a mother-son relationship is unique. Yes, you'll love, care, and be cared for by other people in your life, but none of them will be mom. I see the same kind of relationship with my whatever...
But, I may well just be making that up of whole cloth. I honestly don't know, and at some point, any rationalization is basically a shot in the dark when it comes to the inner workings of my psyche...
First off, and I'm sure this comes as no surprise, I don't think the state should sanction anything with regards to interpersonal relationships.
I think the reason that most marriages end in divorce is because of the reasons people get married. I think a vast majority of people get married too early (for whatever reason) or for all the wrong reasons (lust, money, etc).
People just don't seem to think through such a huge decision, and the do not view it as a lifelong commitment any more. One sign of trouble and someone bolts; they don't want to put in the effort and trouble it takes to make a relationship work through hard times.
Annika · 18 years ago
Only if I was drunk would I take part in a three-some, and I never get drunk... oh wait, yes I do, then... oh..
"None of that 'we didn't laugh at that Jesus'. Shut up! Get on the bus with Leary and Scorcese, you're going right to friggin hell!"
Erica: movin' to Ohio!! · 18 years ago
i believe that it's possible to feel equally attracted to more than one person. also, i've been in situations where the two or more people i love would be really great with eachother and i've wanted to share the experience of lovemaking with the both of them in one instance. that being said, at the end of the day i would really just be happy to have one person all for me to go home with. eventually i want to find a partner who's tuned into me and i want to FEEL a connection with someone that isn't based on lust. the only problem is that the cynic in me tends to believe that that person doesn't exist. and in the meantime, a loving yet casual relationship can fill my need for intimacy.
FrüBill · 18 years ago
I'm really surprised that no one aked if Pete Best would be involved one way or another...
It's a girl! · 18 years ago
An orgy isn't an orgy without Pete Best! (although, are three people enough to make up an orgy?)
I'm finding a good number of the responses rather hutful and insulting... they seem to be respectfully conceeding that maybe in another universe it is possible for some strange freaky people out there to have a connection to more than one person at the same time and sure they respect that because we respect all deviant lifestyles because we're liberal like that, but it's not for normal people like us. Maybe I'm reading too much into this... but goddamn i get sick of living in such a mono-hetero world!
I understand that people who believe as I do are not common in society... I suppose maybe the discomfort with "respectful dismissal" stems in part from being a member of a minority religion and feeling "respectfully dismissed" so often by people who have been taught to respect others to their faces but cannot really concieve of someone not believing in Jesus Christ... or more often from being half-atheist and having people not able to concieve of the idea of not believing in God...
This is not coming out quite the way i mean it to. I can't seem to get at the right words. I understand something being far from another person's experience... what is bothering me is a feeling that I'm getting that people are saying "Well, I'm sure it's possible for other people..." but that they don't really mean it... they don't believe it.
Again, like I said, I may be reading into this too much. But it makes me uncomfortable... like if someone were saying to me "well, you don't *really* not believe in Jesus, do you?"
Who are you to tell me what I believe and don't believe. Don't put words in my mouth.
Polyamory is not for me. Not people like me. Me. Michael Gregory MaKi.
I get the distinct impression that you came in to this conversation looking to be offended, and when no one obliged, you created conflict out of thin air.
Michael, you are not the only other in this conversation. I tried very hard to make this as inoccuous as I could. I said that I very well may be reading too much into this, and I said that this was a feeling that I was getting from a number of posts.
A *feeling.* From a *number* of posts.
I'm not trying to attack you. I'm not looking to be offended, especially not by you. But I felt a strong desire to express my feelings about what was being said in this poll discussion.
Sorry, Gella. I overreacted. It's been an emotionally trying day. I know that's not an excuse, but I hope it's an explanation.
Michael, I really don't think she's talking about you, or at least not *specifically* about you. Rather she's talking about a trend that I see too where people say things like "well of course anything is possible, but I don't know anyone..." The fact is that polyamory is way more than possible. It is practiced everyday by many many people both consiously and unconsiously. Gella isn't trying to advocate a lifestyle here, rather she is voicing her feeling that many people (not necessarily you) don't really take her viewpoint seriously because they think it is too "out there" when in fact it is not all that out there at all.
Andrea Krause · 18 years ago
I don't really see it as looking down on the choice. It's the nature of a discussion like that. I don't see the "i haven't really seen it or experienced it but I'm sure it can happen" line of discourse to be insincere and condescending. It seems the only honest way to express one's personal experience without saying one's personal experience is "the way it should be." It would be dishonest for me to say "wooohoo polyamory works and is great!" because I honestly have never really seen it in action. Others beyond me have seen it but in an explosive way. But all of our experiences are limited. We experience what we experience and we have to speak to that. But I'm not willing to decide that my experience is how things should be. I'm almost certain it's not. So I will say...I've never experienced it directly or indirectly, but I do believe that for people doing it honestly and for the right reasons (e.g. not getting involved in a poly relationship because you really want one of the people exclusively but that's the only way you can have them) that it can work and be fulfilling.
But in the end all I can say is I've never experienced it, I know it wouldn't work for me because of my specific neuroses, and that's my personal view. My view as to whether it's for ME. This is not to say if it's for you that it's not right or just something I'll tolerate because I'm a liberal. I just can only speak to my own emotions or what I've seen. What I *believe* is that any situation under the sun can work if the right people are involved.
I don't know if this is going to help, or even make sense, and it's certainly not intended to speak for anyone but me, but...here goes...
From the people, myself included, I've had a chance to "observe," I've assumed that "human nature" or whatever you want to call it does not allow for healthy polyamorous relationships. I've never seen it work or known anyone I thought could make it work. A few of my friends went through "I don't believe in monogamy" phases, but all of them ended up feeling jealous and/or insecure and decided they liked exclusive relationships, after all. I guess I knew myself well enough (or was just enough of a conformist) not to even really consider it.
However, I also realize that my experience is very limited and am willing to accept that just because I don't know anyone who could be in a healthy polyamorous relationship doesn't mean that the only people who can are from some freakish alternate universe. What is better for me is not objectively better. I'll admit I don't really understand how someone could be...I don't know...comfortable enough (?) with him- or herself to not have a desire to be that cheesy chick flick-esque one special person....but there are a lot of things I don't understand that I still believe exist. So, my point is (*wookie noise*), I do mean it when I say "I'm sure it's possible for other people..." and I also sort of envy the confidence that I imagine must be necessary to make it possible.
As I said...I don't know if that helps...it might have just reinforced how you were feeling....and, if that's the case, I apologize.
katydid the blogger · 18 years ago
well, having been one of the members of the human species for a number of years, i can safely say that "human nature" is not a set thing. it varies from person to person. =)
how many people do you know who like exactly the same things as even one other person? how many people do you know who have exactly the same personality? the same nature?
i think its about diversity. i need to have a bunch of different things feeding my brain, or else i just get...bored is the wrong word...i guess indifferent is better...hmm. i do this with news, with friends, with love, with anything. its the lack of barriers. the feeling that anything can happen at any time, and there are no restrictions on it. funny...i've heard those exact words come out of gella's mouth...hmm...am i channelling or what? hehehe
i myself am open to the possibility of an x-some. i have been propositioned for it a few times...i have come close to it a few times (too bad one of them fell asleep).
however, i dont consider myself polyamorous. simply because i do not constrict myself in any way. i do know that limiting myself to only one person emotionally is not something i enjoy doing. i have done it. i have also cheated on every person i have done that with. my entire life.
and it had nothing to do with confidence. i have no confidence at all, as i'm sure gella and other close friends of mine can back up.
it had to do with this little feeling inside me that wouldnt go away. it would just keep growing. this little tic that would push me in certain directions. like being bi. or not limiting my attentions to one person.
oddly enough, this spills over into the rest of my life. i have to have more than one job, or more than a small group of friends, or more than one hamster, or computer, or game console...take your pick. =)
I guess I don't see how that would be hurtful, ya know?
I've seen a poly relationship work... but I couldn't see it working for me.
If I had not seen the one that DID work, then I too would be saying, "I guess it's possible..." because without having seen it work, how do you know?
I really do not believe that anyone here is looking down their nose at ANYONE'S lifestyle or relationship choices.... it's just that many people here are not familiar with a poly relationship, and honestly don't know if it would work.
Well, I think Becca sort of cleaned up for me (thank you for your honesty Becca, i really appreciate it). What bothers me is that without direct experience, people tend to assume that some mysterious force called "human nature" disallows such interactions... that I can be sitting here saying "this is my life" and people can sit there and say "Well, I dunno..." Not in criticism, really, but with a degree of incredulity. Katydid already addressed certain aspects of the "human nature" question quite nicely, Thank you darling. :)
Can you see how that might be a little bit hurtful?
I guess I can't... I may have missed it, but I don't recall anyone reacting to your life choices with incredulity or critcism....
I do think you are perhaps reading too much into it. Perhaps because of societal pressure to be "normal" (whatever that is), you feel you are under attack or "dismissed".
I'm not sure if I was one of the posters who you felt dismissed by. For me the question is almost silly. What does anyone's sexual preference or sexual tastes have to do with anything really?
Michael is gay - good for him. I'm straight - whoop de doo. You're comfortable in a polygamous relationship - cool beans. It all really doesn't affect anyone else. Yes, unfortunately if you're in the minority with respect to any belief, preference, or thought, you have a higher probability of another person not believing what you do and having it be outside the "accepted" norm.
You know what? With respect to sexual preferences and tastes, who the gives a flying hootnanny WHAT someone else thinks about your lifestyle. Maybe some people don't believe polygamy is possible; so what? It's obviously not possible for them, but they cannot say what you believe is wrong. Just because one person cannot conceive of being in a polygamous relationship does not make it impossible or immoral.
I guess what I'm convolutedly trying to say is, since the issue of romantic relationships is an entirely voluntary and personal matter, what does it matter what one person (or the majority) believe versus what you believe?
Well you're right. In a lot of ways, it doesn't. But I think one of Gella's problems is that so many people make an assumption that most everybody is straight and most everybody is inheirently monogamous, and that is their world view and so that causes Gella to feel she has to stand up and say "hello!!! I don't fit your assumptions" all the time. She doesn't want to have to do that so much. She wants to be who she is, and still be included in the general definition of normal. She wants a world where being bi or gay is no more surprising than being straight. Am I right Gella?
Well, I would submit that making an assumption that people are closed-minded is just as bad as making an assumption that people are "straight" or "monogamous".
I would say that it's a major stretch to think that people on here were in some way judging gella... though, again, I fail to see how that's the point.
No offense intended, but ... I don't see how this was directed at Gella in particular to begin with.
As far as *I* knew... this was a discussion, and the first person that I saw judging people was Gella herself.
but don't you remember Nate? People alegedly judge Gella, then other people attack them for it and defend Gella (who doesn't herself even agree with her defenders) Then others attack those people and the whole thing erupts into a huge discussion/flame war about whether or not you can be friends with a band member, and whether or not you can expect to them to talk to you or not etc. And then some shadowy backchannel group of snarky assholes that goes by some obscure 3 letter acronym will start discussing the whole thing in secret, and adding posts to the newsgroup just to fuel the fire.
This just seems like business as usual in fruheadland. :)
Gosh I miss the old days!
AJ, you forgot the paranoid ones will then start posting in their d*lands and bloggers about how they feel they are being persecuted because of some post that the whole 'net cannot see or understand what they are talking about because they are out of the loop for not being a part of "deja news" when that whole 3 letter acronym for a group started.
Then the complaints come up about how someone didn't get a set list and how someone was called a slut standing in front of them at a show...yadda yadda yadda.
Yup, business as usual in Fruheadland. ;)
You'd get my vote (if I had one) but alas all the shadowy backchannel groups are now pale shadows of their former selves.
Nate, it is not about *me*, it is not about things being directed at *me*, it is not about *me* being criticized or judged.
It is about any member or the human species, as katydid pointed out, being told, or having it implied that they are somehow outside the realm of what this mythical beast called "human nature" dictates.
It is not about *me* and *my lifestyle.* I'm not that full of myself. It is not about direct explicit *judgement.* It is not about direct explicit "disrespect." It is about a majority worldview that just doesn't include certain "types of people" as they are often thought of.
I am raising an issue. I am calling attention to something that I see passively demonstrated here by some people. I'm not saying *look at me, I'm so oppressed!*
Frankly, I'm sick of people looking at me instead of what i'm saying... talking about me and my mental state and my issues instead of looking at the larger societal issue that I am trying to point out. I'm sick of people taking my writing about "the state of this" and "the nature of that" and my questioning thereof, my observations and lack of conclusions about what people seem to demonstrate, and instead of talking about the writing, insisting on talking about *me* and what they see as my neuroses.
Its not me. It's just not.
katydid the blogger · 18 years ago
no, its not just you.
unfortunatly, many people are not as accepting as some of those here, so ones personal life does matter.
besides, if ones personal life is a part of oneself, then it makes up who you are...and in that sense, it very much matters. it is just as important as if you are racist or discriminatory. this is not a moral relativism issue. pick a side and stick with it. either you approve of it or you dont. and in either case, i want to know why, so a discussion can be had about it.
yes. we all have our own feelings on this. so just come out and say it. if you dont think its right, then say that. if you think that its wonderful, dont hide...come right out and jump up and down.
lifestyle has nothing to do with it. if i suddenly decided to start wearing a stuffed frog on my head, some people would call it a "lifestyle choice". i'd just call it wearing a frog on my head.
yes aj, i agree with both you and gella. it is entirely about being seen as "fringe" or "radical". although that can be fun sometimes, it starts to get boring when everyone looks at you with a bit of distaste or envy or what-have-you.
and i think i'm glad that i dont get so embroiled in conversations that i get upset with my defenders. =)
Rachel Beck · 18 years ago
I'm going to have to answer this the same way I answered the reporter at my high school who (nine years ago, before it ever dawned on me that maybe I liked some girls romantically) asked me if I would ever sleep with a woman.
I don't know. I've never been in the situation to participate in a threesome, and I can't honestly say what I would decide.
At this point in my life, I've done many things I never thought I'd do, and I haven't done many things I thought I would. So I'm not so good with hypothetical questions anymore.
You must first create an account to post.