IndieSolo
Active member
You are really silly. How old are you?
Sexuality Dynamics
- Thread starter Flowerchild
- Start date
You are really silly. How old are you?
Vixtoria
New member
Yeah sorry, first of all, for clarification, I was not using myself as an example but as a way to make your scenario make sense. Hubby, not dating, me, not straight.
Secondly, hubby has been in a threesome, with a woman and another man. Both men straight. That's still a threesome, neither are any less straight.
Work on your assumptions, they are really doing you a disservice.
Secondly, hubby has been in a threesome, with a woman and another man. Both men straight. That's still a threesome, neither are any less straight.
Work on your assumptions, they are really doing you a disservice.
gorgeouskitten
New member
This thread has gotten amusing, but to clarify my earlier post, I was reaponding to the original comment of straight women not wanting threesomes. The NYC chick and I were goofing around a bit.
Later posts, I don't see how having a threesome with a woman and my spouse would make me bi, since I have no independent interest in women.
I dunno.
This thread went wild!
Later posts, I don't see how having a threesome with a woman and my spouse would make me bi, since I have no independent interest in women.
I dunno.
This thread went wild!
Marcus
Well-known member
I am having a very hard time figuring out what you are trying to say, FC. I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one.
As far as I can piece together, what you seem to be saying is that if everyone involved in a polyamorous relationship is bisexual then it would be a more target-rich environment. Factually speaking, I suppose that would be true. If the people around me are attracted to my gender, I'm attracted to theirs, that would suggest a higher possibility of jamming our genitals together. Ah romance...
You also seem to be suggesting that if each person in the relationship is dating the other, then it would somehow lessen tensions like jealousy. From what I've seen on these boards, that isn't even remotely true, and actually the opposite would seem to be true. At least when people date separately they can keep the jealousy more compartmentalized and addressed individually. If we're all in romantic relationships with each other, and I'm jealous of one of you, I am by default going to have to deal with issues with the other.
LovingRadiance
Active member
My ex-boyfriend and I had threesomes with his male best friend. They were both heterosexual men who had no interest in one another. But they had a great interest in working as a team to give a woman an intense and wonderful experience, overwhelming her with attention.
Likewise, I've had threesomes with my dh and bf who also have no interest in one another sexually. In both cases, it was a circumstance where they were gifting me the opportunity to have twice the attention.
In all of the times I've been with two men, none of the men were bi or even bi-curious. They simply didn't do anything to/with one another. They focused their attention on me.
Additionally, I've had a number of FFM threesomes. Most of the time both women were bi. But at least one time, the other woman was straight, and we simply focused on pleasing the man, and left each other alone.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Yes, most do date independently. Say, I have a boyfriend and I'm bisexual. Do we both have to date the same woman? Of course not. But would it make it easier to develop a relationship as we might all have time to be intimate together? Time always being an issue. I can't help but think it would ease tensions that come from scheduling.
Apparently, however, I'm crazy in thinking this.
Time? Honestly, very little of our time is spent having sex. Most of it is spent doing day to day life. So almost all of our day to day life is fully integrated. Me, DH, BF and kids. Frequently the grandkids too.
Now for sex, we segregate. (2 times in 20 years seems unremarkable for this point.) But they work opposite shifts, so it hasn't affected our "day to day time," because they aren't in bed at the same time, and they aren't available for sex at the same time.
LovingRadiance
Active member
FC, it might not mean threesome to you if all participants aren't fondling each other. But by definition of the word, it is still a threesome if three people are in bed and participating in sex, even if they aren't all fondling everyone in the bed.
It helps a lot if you want to have intellectual discourse about difficult topics (of which all of this is intellectual masturbation, really, because it's all theoretical) to take time to find out in advance what the "general" understanding of a word is, not your own personal understanding of it, or
clarify, "I define X as being blah blah blah, and based upon that assumption, I posit that blah blah blah blah blah is blah blah blah."
When you just assume that everyone is going to understand what on earth you are assuming, you create threads that go awry, like this one, with a bunch of posters going, "WHAT???"
It helps a lot if you want to have intellectual discourse about difficult topics (of which all of this is intellectual masturbation, really, because it's all theoretical) to take time to find out in advance what the "general" understanding of a word is, not your own personal understanding of it, or
clarify, "I define X as being blah blah blah, and based upon that assumption, I posit that blah blah blah blah blah is blah blah blah."
When you just assume that everyone is going to understand what on earth you are assuming, you create threads that go awry, like this one, with a bunch of posters going, "WHAT???"
Dirtclustit
Banned
It seems like intellectual masturbation
when it is a competition, and a parading around like peacocks, yet not being grown up enough to admit it, seems like the only thing that causes the real problems on these boards.
Asking for clarification is always good, even if it's just paraphrasing back what you heard with your tone of voice ending on a high note to signify -- at least halfway -- a question
always good
but can you honestly say you don't see any competitive masturbation pissing contests where the most points are awarded for style, and the popular style is whoever can "appear" to be the coiner of the next dominant "poly" trend that make it a lot like some team debate exercise?
You know I don't think poorly of you guys LR, as you aren't even participating really in this one as you seem to be just discussing the topic, answering the questions as if you don't really care about the the next rule to be ratified as acceptable behavior of "the official no-longer-underground poly community" nor are you worried about the next edition of the "ONLU PC" poly dictionary and whether or not the pesky poly individuals are going to stay within the context that many have put many hours of hard work, thought, masturbationary discussions on, that could be all for not,
Can you honestly tell me you think the problem is people do not understand what FC is talking about, or that she is making these broad generalizations that are false, as opposed to asking about a specific personal situation, that maybe they know exactly how FC is defining words, and it is the opposition's definitions, a power struggle if you will, that is going on here?
I am sure I am just being paranoid, and/or delusional, possibly reading into something and adding my own inaccurate assumptions that couldn't be further from the truth.
Anyway
I do think threesomes with three hetero participants, happen significantly less than when one or more are bisexual
I label myself as hetero, and not bisexual, however I do find threesomes to be a huge turn on in certain situations, and I prefer them to be MFM as opposed to being with two females. It just seems to fit the needs of all involved better, even though the needs that I am talking about would really be spoken of more accurately, to satiate sexual lust
And my preference has nothing to do with sexual orientation, as I prefer threesomes with a man and a woman, as opposed to with two women, and it doesn't matter if they are bisexual, hetero , lesbians or even man hating lesbians
when it is a competition, and a parading around like peacocks, yet not being grown up enough to admit it, seems like the only thing that causes the real problems on these boards.
Asking for clarification is always good, even if it's just paraphrasing back what you heard with your tone of voice ending on a high note to signify -- at least halfway -- a question
always good
but can you honestly say you don't see any competitive masturbation pissing contests where the most points are awarded for style, and the popular style is whoever can "appear" to be the coiner of the next dominant "poly" trend that make it a lot like some team debate exercise?
You know I don't think poorly of you guys LR, as you aren't even participating really in this one as you seem to be just discussing the topic, answering the questions as if you don't really care about the the next rule to be ratified as acceptable behavior of "the official no-longer-underground poly community" nor are you worried about the next edition of the "ONLU PC" poly dictionary and whether or not the pesky poly individuals are going to stay within the context that many have put many hours of hard work, thought, masturbationary discussions on, that could be all for not,
Can you honestly tell me you think the problem is people do not understand what FC is talking about, or that she is making these broad generalizations that are false, as opposed to asking about a specific personal situation, that maybe they know exactly how FC is defining words, and it is the opposition's definitions, a power struggle if you will, that is going on here?
I am sure I am just being paranoid, and/or delusional, possibly reading into something and adding my own inaccurate assumptions that couldn't be further from the truth.
Anyway
I do think threesomes with three hetero participants, happen significantly less than when one or more are bisexual
I label myself as hetero, and not bisexual, however I do find threesomes to be a huge turn on in certain situations, and I prefer them to be MFM as opposed to being with two females. It just seems to fit the needs of all involved better, even though the needs that I am talking about would really be spoken of more accurately, to satiate sexual lust
And my preference has nothing to do with sexual orientation, as I prefer threesomes with a man and a woman, as opposed to with two women, and it doesn't matter if they are bisexual, hetero , lesbians or even man hating lesbians
Last edited:
LovingRadiance
Active member
I can honestly say, DC, that I don't care if people are being obstinate or difficult in terms of what I said. People as a rule of thumb ARE obstinate and difficult. For me personally, I simply find I avoid giving them a place to "twist" my words if I am more critical of my own terminology and clarification.
We can not control anyone but ourselves. So, if we as an individual want to minimize how frequently people get annoyed, frustrated, sarcastic, obstinate, etc., about our words, we can choose to be more explicit and clear, thus alleviating that opening (or at least minimizing it).
You are correct that I don't have a pre-defined idea of "right" or "wrong" poly. It also happens that I am of the "family-oriented" group in lovestyle choice (versus the more independent) because I have children. However, if I did not have children, I would be more inclined to be like NYCindie; live alone, date whoever, and it would be no one's business but my own what I did with whom or where.
As a mother, I prefer to not be apart from my children, or cause their other parents to be apart from them simply because I would prefer my OWN home separate from my lovers. Shrug.
At any rate, whilst I believe I understand what FC meant, I happen to think FC is delusional in what the definition of threesome (and group sex) are. A threesome is a form of group sex by definition. One that involves 3 people with no requirement that it be triadic. A "v" threesome is more common, in my experience, than a triadic threesome.
We can not control anyone but ourselves. So, if we as an individual want to minimize how frequently people get annoyed, frustrated, sarcastic, obstinate, etc., about our words, we can choose to be more explicit and clear, thus alleviating that opening (or at least minimizing it).
You are correct that I don't have a pre-defined idea of "right" or "wrong" poly. It also happens that I am of the "family-oriented" group in lovestyle choice (versus the more independent) because I have children. However, if I did not have children, I would be more inclined to be like NYCindie; live alone, date whoever, and it would be no one's business but my own what I did with whom or where.
As a mother, I prefer to not be apart from my children, or cause their other parents to be apart from them simply because I would prefer my OWN home separate from my lovers. Shrug.
At any rate, whilst I believe I understand what FC meant, I happen to think FC is delusional in what the definition of threesome (and group sex) are. A threesome is a form of group sex by definition. One that involves 3 people with no requirement that it be triadic. A "v" threesome is more common, in my experience, than a triadic threesome.
Dirtclustit
Banned
Hoping you understood
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said you were one of replies who were NOT playing those debating games
as I meant that
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said you were one of replies who were NOT playing those debating games
as I meant that
IndieSolo
Active member
Dirtclustit, no one in this thread is debating the OP. We are answering her questions, providing other viewpoints, and asking for clarification due to her statements which are loaded with assumptions that she seems to think apply to the majority of polyfolk, and her quite strange misperceptions about group sex.
We are only trying to get her to be clear about what she is asking so that we can give her the info she seeks. She has been rather muddled and unclear in every thread she has started. Apparently, it seems she has been taught some very odd things about what polyamory is.
You are the one who seems to be trying to start an argument. Others who have contributed to this thread have only pointed out to her where she is unclear or mistaken, and given her other perspectives, but if she doesn't agree or understand, I am quite certain it will not affect nor bother any of us. Believe me, it's not worth it to be that invested emotionally in conversations on an anonymous message board.
We are only trying to get her to be clear about what she is asking so that we can give her the info she seeks. She has been rather muddled and unclear in every thread she has started. Apparently, it seems she has been taught some very odd things about what polyamory is.
You are the one who seems to be trying to start an argument. Others who have contributed to this thread have only pointed out to her where she is unclear or mistaken, and given her other perspectives, but if she doesn't agree or understand, I am quite certain it will not affect nor bother any of us. Believe me, it's not worth it to be that invested emotionally in conversations on an anonymous message board.
Last edited:
Dirtclustit
Banned
I disagree
it has nothing to do with obdurate attitudes, and it has everything to do with controlling the direction of the thread.
Flowerchild was asking about two different scenarios for the same situation, and would one tend to involve more threesomes, not making assumptions of broad generalizations about every polyship.
Ironically enough FC was saying that in her mind a threesome was a lot like your rigid definition of a "triad". As the grammarians are adamant that it matters not how fully integrated three may be in each others life, without penetration of genitals, it's just a Vee, or as FC called it, not a threesome but rather group sex
If you cannot recognize how the flow of this thread could easily be taken as silly power struggle over specific, strict definitions over nothing more than minor details, than you are missing major themes of many of this site's threads
it has nothing to do with obdurate attitudes, and it has everything to do with controlling the direction of the thread.
Flowerchild was asking about two different scenarios for the same situation, and would one tend to involve more threesomes, not making assumptions of broad generalizations about every polyship.
Ironically enough FC was saying that in her mind a threesome was a lot like your rigid definition of a "triad". As the grammarians are adamant that it matters not how fully integrated three may be in each others life, without penetration of genitals, it's just a Vee, or as FC called it, not a threesome but rather group sex
If you cannot recognize how the flow of this thread could easily be taken as silly power struggle over specific, strict definitions over nothing more than minor details, than you are missing major themes of many of this site's threads
Last edited:
LovingRadiance
Active member
Natja, there are two moderators who handle who gets banned and for what. There are a number of activities that are not allowed on the board, as listed on this page: http://www.polyamory.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23 Most infractions are dealt with via PM by the moderators, directly to the poster in question. If someone has too many infractions, or they participate in certain activities, they will be banned. It isn't something that is arbitrary or random. In 4 years, I've only seen a handful of people banned.
Natja
New member
Okay, so it could be too many infractions, rather than one thing? Thanks, that makes sense.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Yes, Natja. If you collect too many infractions you can be banned.
Flowerchild
New member
Thank you. Was starting to feel ganged up on.
LovingRadiance
Active member
FC, what I originally posted, which Dirtclustit commented on, was sincere and serious. When engaging in conversation, ESPECIALLY online,
if you want to minimize the amount of backlash, questioning, frustration, sarcasm (feel free to continue adding pertinent adjectives), it's imperative to clarify precisely what YOU mean by words and phrases, and/or ensure that you are using the commonly accepted definitions based upon where you are communicating. As this is a world-wide page, that means it isn't a local definition, but a world definition, which doesn't exist for many concepts, thus making it necessary to specify what YOU mean.
Your understanding of most of the key terms in your questions and follow-up responses are arguable at best. That doesn't make you wrong, but it does guarantee that if you don't clarify and specify what definition you are using, you WILL get dramatic, argumentative responses. It's a predictable result to unclear communicating.
What seems like clear communication when we are talking to our localized peers is at best murky, muddy water when talking to people from such broad backgrounds, life experience and cultures.
I am well-known on this board for being easy-going and accepting of newcomers and people with ALL DIFFERENT understandings of poly, relationships, love, etc. But I found your post to be confusing at best, and based upon some seriously flawed presumptions, at worst.
I assumed it was a communication mishap, thus why I gave you communication-style advice.
if you want to minimize the amount of backlash, questioning, frustration, sarcasm (feel free to continue adding pertinent adjectives), it's imperative to clarify precisely what YOU mean by words and phrases, and/or ensure that you are using the commonly accepted definitions based upon where you are communicating. As this is a world-wide page, that means it isn't a local definition, but a world definition, which doesn't exist for many concepts, thus making it necessary to specify what YOU mean.
Your understanding of most of the key terms in your questions and follow-up responses are arguable at best. That doesn't make you wrong, but it does guarantee that if you don't clarify and specify what definition you are using, you WILL get dramatic, argumentative responses. It's a predictable result to unclear communicating.
What seems like clear communication when we are talking to our localized peers is at best murky, muddy water when talking to people from such broad backgrounds, life experience and cultures.
I am well-known on this board for being easy-going and accepting of newcomers and people with ALL DIFFERENT understandings of poly, relationships, love, etc. But I found your post to be confusing at best, and based upon some seriously flawed presumptions, at worst.
I assumed it was a communication mishap, thus why I gave you communication-style advice.
Flowerchild
New member
That's fine, but accusatory statements are not helpful in continuing conversation. Calling me delusional is inflammatory, not sincere.
Marcus
Well-known member
I'm beginning to think you are right about this. It's like, instead of having a conversation, she's just dangling vague and irrelevant bait and chuckling as we all chase it around.