|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 25 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Feature: Group Sex |
Posted by
callei on Wednesday, October 24, 2001 - 02:04 PM PST
Monogamy won out in our little poll about favorite relationship types. I'm not suprized or unsuprized really. Although i have a feeling that some people may have voted for it more than once, thereby skewing the results abit. It raised a question in my mind. WHY monogamgy? Isn't it "cooler" to want tribal or trine or something?.
I mean, the emerging stereotyes are that all girls are bisexual and that all men want to be with two bi girls. I though that trine would win out since that is the subculture archetypical relationship. Even Penthouse Letters says so. So I ask again why is this select group of people so different? Are we all lying? Are we all that selfish? Are we all that lazy?
Every girlie in a t-shirt that says porn star is insinuating that the wearer will and wants to sleep with many people. Yet they are often unapproachable and no fun when you do get them in bed. Boys that will dance with two girls at a club, often will get scared and leave if the girls make it clear that they are a) together and b) willing to go play. Dinner party's ought to be renamed, since there tends to be very little "party" and way too much dinner involved. (this is sort of an inside joke, but I bet most of you get the point. After all this post is from the Mistress of Orgies. hint hint.)
My point here being that there is ALOT of lying going on. As far as selfish goes, well I can understand not wanting to share your favorite toy, or your car, but there is no way to NOT share a person. You have to share them with themselves at the very least. Every friend they have ever had, every family member, that scary teacher that they tell you about, the people at work, the people on the freeway, the whole rest of the world really. You are already sharing thier time and attention, so why not be part of that sharing instead of pretending that it doesnt exist?
The logistics can be more difficult with three or four than with two you say. I tell you that you are wrong. They are easier, actually. You KNOW what to do with your hands. OK yes there are that many more knees to deal with, but there are that many more mouths to kiss. Its an even trade off really. Its just as easy to meet two people as it is to meet one. Actually (again) its easier. After all most people that you meet are in congregation places; dance clubs, cafes, work, buses, etc. Its rare to meet someone in a room with just your two in there.
So if you are lying, remember that the proof is in the pudding as they say, and that you will get caught out and laughed at. If you are lazy, well stay that way. Who wants a lazy lover? If you are selfish, consider the lie that you are trying to believe and see if you can understand that sharing your time with some one doesn't make them your mindless, souless toy. It just means that you have shared time. On the flip side, when getting intimate with 2 or more people, be careful that you dont feel intimidated by the looks of any of the same sex people. This can lead to competition and make it less fun for everyone
|
|
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 3.0
Total ratings : 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
Group Sex | Login/Create an account | 20 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Group Sex
by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com)
on Oct 25, 2001 - 12:40 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/
|
It's the same thing that went on during the glam rock era in the 70's....all of a sudden, everyone was bisexual. it was popular to be androgenous and into boys and girls, and most who claimed bisexuality thought they were so because they chicken pecked a member of the same sex on the lips.
Most people are like "group sex!" when all they've done is make out with one person in a room full of people doing the same thing drunk on wine coolers. It's trendy to be "open" when they don't realize that you don't have to fuck everyone and everything that moves to be "open". I'm an "open" person, and I'm totally monogamos and always have been. It's like saying you're into S&M because you get all dolled up and drag your retarded boyfriend around the mall on a dog leash or own a dollar store bullwhip and a pair of cowboys and indians handcuffs with a safety release.
And I'm sorry, don't wear a collar unless you want me to yank on it...HARD. ANd don't yell at me when I tie you to a pole in the park when you wear "bondage pants". Most of the "bondage pants" on the market have NO real bondage capabilities, and would positively SHRED if put to use only once.
I'm sorry, if you want to be some BDSM dominatrix/dominated type, you better PROVE IT. I like to be bitchsmacked and strangled as much as the next girl, but I dont' claim to be into S&M. I'm sorry, but if my boyfriend came after me with some of the things I've seen in shops and online, I'd have him arrested.
on your knees, bitch *whip*
(thanks for bringing this up, it really bugs me and I needed to get that off my chest)
|
Re: Group Sex by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Oct 25, 2001 - 01:58 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | It is so amazingly strange to me to lie about sex. I mean if you say that you like something a thoughtful partner will try to do it to/for/with you. If you DONT really like whatever it is that you lied about, this can make for a very akward time. You partner wonders if they are doing "it" wrong, you wonder why they tried this. Lots of shmeng.
It seems to me, naive fool that i am, that one of the few things that it makes sense to tell the truth about is sex.
I mean this is one place that lies can kill, after all.
Also, if i see one more idiot wearing a collar and acting all dommy, i WILL kick them. For all of you that dont understand why this is stoopid, let me spell it out for you. People who like to DOMINATE others dont wear a SLAVE collar. No O-rings or D-rings.
For those of you that think you "might be bi" try it a few times then think about it again. Just because you think is cute does NOT mean that you are bi. It just means that you can identify a cute person. Just because you got drunk and kissed a person of the same sex does NOT mean that you are bi. It just means that you got drunk and kissed someone.
Dont pretend that you are into something that you arent sure about. It will just freak out the people that havent tried it or dont like it, and piss off the people that are into and try to pick up on you.
On a side note, I am bi. honestly truely and for sure. I experimented with poly love, but i am too lazy and too easily confused to be a realiably good partner. I LIKE monogamy because i am selfish and so is my partner. That doesnt mean that i dont day dream, fantasize, and drool over other people on occation. It just means that i do all that WITH my partner and he does the same with me.
One of the myriad of things that i love about him is his appreciation of beauty. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Group Sex by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Oct 25, 2001 - 09:41 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | Along those same lines, you'd be suprised how many people lie about poly stuff - not just being bi. I think they're a little quieter about it, cuz the people that do it just want to please whoever they're after, not the world. With the bi thing they think they're being cool - but at least in my experience, the ones that lie about sharing good are doing it to please me. After they decide they want to keep me around, and they find out that that's only gonna happen if they share good, they'll try to convince themselves that they can do it without even putting any thought into what that means. I've seen people totally talk themselves into thinking it was the perfect thing for them, and they'd go play with someone and be all happy that I didn't mind - and then when it was my turn to play, or we'd find someone who wanted to play with both of us, they'd freak out and go completely psycho and unreasonable. I've also been on the 3rd end of this one and it sucks just as bad to get really mushy with someone, only to have their partner (who's idea it was in the first place) change their mind when they figure out that it's more than sex (no i'm not bitter why do you ask?). Or at some point it would just suddenly hit them that they weren't gonna be able to 'make me' monogamous, and they'd get their ego wounded and leave... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Group Sex by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Oct 26, 2001 - 12:21 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | I hate to see that. I knew a girl that tried to convince herself that she could share and made herself sleep with other people. She always had a bad time, her partners had a bad time and the person she was trying to please could see how awful it was for her. He broke it off rather than see her hurt herself and others again. she cried on my shoulder for days about losing him, and never said a word about the other lovers. She was trying way to hard. way to hard.
Just goes to show that lying about what you really with /from a lover is a bad idea |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Group Sex by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Oct 26, 2001 - 11:43 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/ | I just think it's positively ridiculous. I know highschoolers lie about sex, and most people lie about the number of people (rule of 3. Guys divide the number they say by 3 *says 3...divide by 3...they bagged 1: Girls say 1...X 3..they bagged 3 etc*)
but saying you're "into" something so you can feel special and freaky and all fucking into eroticism and whatever BUGS me. Like said before...don't carry a whip unless you plan to use it (but why would you take one to a mall? I can see in my case, where I work in the mall, I would need one, but please, if your man/woman can't behave in public, LEAVE THEM HOME), don't wear straps unless you want to be restrained, and quit putting on too much white face, those stupid fang caps and draging your ugly zitty prepubescent boyfriend around the mall on a leash. At least make sure he's had his shots or I"m calling animal control. Sex is sex and it doesn't belong in the mall. If you're hitting fetish night at machine works, fine. BUt not the fucking mall....
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Group Sex by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Oct 27, 2001 - 12:14 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | If you are trying to "scare" people at the mall, wear a clown suit. I mean a real one, not just something that makes you look like a clown.
We are talking frizzed rainbow colored wig and waaaaay oversized shoes.
If you want to attract the attention of someone else into your particular sexual taste, use subtly and personality ( good legs help too). It is actually more attractive. The undercourant of sexual tension is far more likely to attract a playmate that is worth playing with than looking like a fashion victum.
but here I think i am preaching to the choir. Bettie, you obviously KNOW all this, and those that dont prob'ly dont read the articles here.
Maybe handouts on the highschool campuses would work?
Say no to drugs and bad fashion? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Group Sex by bettie_x (strangersangel@hotmail.com) on Oct 27, 2001 - 08:33 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://bettie_x.tripod.com/strangeasangels/ | Oh I WISH....no to bad outfits.
I would ban mullets, mu-mu's, fake bondage and that stupid crow facepainting ordeal. Whiteface in general. DOesn't work when you have pink ears and pink hands and a face that makes you look like you fell face down into a 2" deep puddle of stomach acid.
Screw drugs...smoke all the dope you want if it'll keep you out of a trenchcoat.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Sexy sexy sex sex
by VampCourt (Morbidchic@hotmail.com)
on Oct 25, 2001 - 07:55 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
my first comment is.. that both paragraphs have great great opinions. betty x? Right ON girl! I compleatly agree with you on the Bondage S&m Thing. I dont think it should be a stupid excuse to walk around in collers and all that shit. I think it should remain as a seriouse sexual thing.. not broadcasted as "maaaaaaybe i might do it"... coz.. in all truth.. it could make a person get involved with something thats way over thier head too. know what i mean? I am into the bondage light S&m (which for all you who dont know what that means.. I like getting the shit kicked outtah me less severly.. a little bit of pain..) And when i see the people that betty x described.. they make me laugh.. because they arent true to who they are. its all a show. a show to make the average nieve person wonder..
Monagamy is cool for some people i think.I dont think its a matter of being selfish really. I think its a matter of wanting that comfort of just one. Some people dont like a crowd under thier sheets. some people feel better off snuggling one.. embracing one.. SpAnKiNg one.. Im not a monagamouse person right now..but whos to say i might change my mind in the future.. i would never call my self selfish and lazy. Im so not knocking you idea.. i just have put it in a diffrent perspective.. I think monagamy is okay.. *big cheesy thumbs up*
|
Re: Group Sex
by sin on Oct 25, 2001 - 07:06 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Ok, the reason for monagomy is self conciousness. Its because both parties in a monagomous relationship like the security that the other brings, that they are in fact a special and unique snowflake that deserves that one persons undevided attention. If we want to rise a bit from that, it also helps not to spread STD's. If you take a guy for instance, he wants to know that his female partner is monagomous, but still he will cheat on her. This will raise his pride and self-worth making him feel like a bad man. But, he would like to keep his continuous female partner in the dark from these actions so he will have a continuous partner, and a back up. An Ego Boost.
As for the idea of parading around in bondage clothes, who gives a fuck? The world is full of people who do not act to what they say, who are lying to themselves to make others think there "cool", and guess what? THAT ISNT GOING TO CHANGE, HUMANS ARE DISGUSTING CREATURES!!! As hard as it is to belive, there are people to dress for fashion, there are poser-goths (*gasp*), and people who like the clothes but are more into intimate, one-on-one, non-sadomasocistic sexual experiances.
Or, you could go to the extreme like me, dont do relationships, dont do sex, because really, this world is filled with stupid, ridiculous people, and i'd rather not have them waste my time.
|
Re: Group Sex by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Oct 26, 2001 - 12:12 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | ok for the least enlightened, that may be true. The idea that only men cheat is an old and entrenched idea in western culture. Its also a big lie. monogamy isnt safer for the ego. That is another lie. Both parties may like the lack of social shunning that they recieve by being a "standard" couple, but that doesnt actually mean that they LIKE monogamy.
My point about monogamy being harder on the ego.... you have to sleep with that person again and again. Everytime they get horny you are gonna hear about it, even when you arent in the mood. You are gonna hear about it when you are sick, tired, have cramps, have jsut cleaned the cat box,whatever. what i mean is that your partner is going to see you at your worst, while in casual sex your partner usually only sees you at your best. So its a major ego hit to have your lover see you with a runny nose, bad hair, and chocolate smeared all over you. anyhoooo...
monogamy only prevents SOME stds. there are many that you can still get from sexual contact, even if that contact is within a monogamous relationship. Ask your doctor. Really.
Oh and remember to pee after sex! |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Group Sex by sin on Oct 26, 2001 - 04:38 AM (User info | Send a Message) | ok, that could be true for the least enlightened most niave people-
you have completly missed my point. Let me clear...
*ahem*
I did not say that only males cheat, that was my example, it works for both parties. Males are not the only sex with an ego, i was speaking of ego in general.
When it comes to casual sex/one night stands/whatever-you-want-to-call-it the person is not seeing you at their best. They are seeing the illusion of what you want them to see.
As for completly monogomous couples, it is mentaly pleasing to have that sort of comfort; to be able to say "im horny" "im not in the mood". They are not seeing you at your worst, they are seeing what is beyond the front that you put on for others. It is not an ego hit to have your partner see you with a runny nose, it is a high level of comfort that the ego needs. It is a human function to find comfort, settle, and feel nice and safe. The point of having long term relationships is to see that person at the best/worst and deciding if its something you can put up with or not.
The std's line was thrown in for sarcasm.
Really. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Group Sex by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Oct 26, 2001 - 10:08 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | I wish someone could explain to me so I'd understand it. Why is it more comfortable and secure to just have one partner? It's much more comfortable to me knowing that if someone leaves, someone else will be there for me and comfort me, rather than leaving me all alone. Just the lack of that fear of being alone gets rid of so many trips. Also, with the ego thing. I don't understand how people think that being loved and adored by one person is better than being loved and adored the same way by 2+ people. I don't think I'll ever understand that one. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
I had someone else before I had you? by Comedian (comedian@callatg.com) on Oct 26, 2001 - 10:35 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Old song, heh.
"I had someone else before I had you, and I'll have someone after you're gone. Get off your bunk, pack all your junk, won't take you long because standing in the middle of your trunk. I had someone else before I had you, and I'll have someone after you're gone. There's in a swinging door in my heart and it swings either way." A bit more to it, but those were the momorable parts. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
For which purpose?
by Arthegarn on Oct 26, 2001 - 10:58 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
When I answered the poll I din't believe in relationships (Neither do I right now, if this goes on I mˇght even end up as a priest XD). But I posted a comment that the poll was not quite clear. Which was our preferred relationship style? To what?
To have a great time in bed? Well, from my extremely limited and heterosexual experience I guess as many girls and as little boys possible, all girls being bi. That's what I guess Penthouse letters say.
To have a long lasting, soul to soul, mind to mind relationship? Well I guess monogamy, I don't think you can become "flesh of her flesh and blood of her blood" with more than one at the same time (OK; I know jews thought different when that was written)
To have a family? Well, many cultures have proven poligamy works (I love a Muslim aphorism about that: One is too little; two, you'd have a favourite and neglect the other; three, two will team up against the third; four is good). I have never heard of a polyandrous (Guess it's written that way) society, but I am sure someone around has and it might work as well.
I think the results of the poll are not significant as everyone might have answered a differnt question. As for the rest... I strongly agree with Callei but turning the argument around. People should know what they say before they define themselves as monogamous when they have no idea about what it means (including all those males who can cheat on their partner and still love hir)
Arthegarn
|
Re: For which purpose? by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Oct 26, 2001 - 06:32 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | What a wonderful point you raise! How do you know that you are mongamous if you have had the opertunity/freedom/whatever to be something other? I think this is a real problem for those people that get married then divorces, then married then divorced and so on. I always wonder when i meet someone that is "on thier 4th marriage" ( i met one that was on thier 12th marriage!)
As for polyandry (multiple husbands) it is less popular these days, but there is evidence to suggest that it was very popular in the past. If you live in a hunter/warrior culture, is it not better to have multiple husbands so that you get more food? and if one dies, you and your kids wont starve...
Anyhoo... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: For which purpose? by Silvernyte on Oct 27, 2001 - 08:49 AM (User info | Send a Message) | I wasn't going to bring up the warrior side of it, but beings as you did.....
Being a warrior/hunter is still very much a part of some people, no matter what time period they are in. For some of us it is a matter of survival from what has went on in our lives. A lot of people that have poly relationships are that way and just don't admit it to themselves.
As far as people that have been married several times, I always thought it was a seemed like an act of desperation to me. They can't get it right the first time, so let's keep doing it until they do. Some people never learn any lessons and keep repeating what they have already done. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Snif
by Arthegarn on Oct 26, 2001 - 10:59 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
And, by the way, after reading all comments, I feel like a fuckingly repressed Catholic with no sex life at all.
XD
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Group Sex
by Silvernyte on Oct 26, 2001 - 11:47 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
It shouldn't make any difference whether you are in a mono relationship or a poly, either way the people you are involved with should know you for who you are, not what you are trying to make them think you are. I have tried it both ways and I have to agree with Devin. It is nice to know that when someone leaves you, that you have another there. It bites the big one when you are only seeing one person and they leave. You get to sit and drown in your own sorrows and then try and continue on. Where as if you are seeing more than one person you have the security of another to help you to lick your wounds and continue on. Not to mention it keeps the mind from being bored with routines people get into. Adventure keeps the soul alive. Not saying you can't do that with just one person, but some of us prefer to do it with more than one.
|
Re: Group Sex
by Maranda (saboneta@aol.com)
on Oct 26, 2001 - 02:08 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
For some-- myself included at present-- being monogamous is not a "lifestyle choice" or a way of defining oneself. It's simply the state that occursr when you find one incredible person with whom you want to build the most wonderful life in the world, for just the two of you. Rather than put energy into many relationships, you put it all into one deep and profound emotional bond.
Of course, one risks of being hurt more deeply this way if it doesn't work out, but sometimes that's a risk you have to take.
I've been in positive and negative monogamous relationships, and positive and negative poly situations. Both situations have merit, as long as those involved are being true to themselves and their partners. "Faking" something you're not is a lousy foundation for a relationship, be it with one person or four.
|
|
|