|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 45 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)
|
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*
|
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
|
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
|
- Re: Snif by callei on Oct 26, 2001 - 06:33 PM
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.
|
|
|