"And you might have more success landing a willing bisexual girl—a girl who's interested in you and your boyfriend—if you made the passes."

Too true. Am I the only one who remembers the bi girl the one who objected to the term "unicorn" because she was more like a pony, ie: not fictional and plenty of them? C'mon, you have to remember her: the lady who spoke of how easy it was to get with her and then went on for over a thousand words on her instant deal-killers? One of those deal-killers was if the man made the approach.

I see neither a valid question nor a valid problem here.

I'd comment, but I'm on hiatus.

As it's not my place to ding for this brand of g/o essentialism, I'll let that go. If the LW doesn't want to take the lead herself, she could always watch reruns of I Dream of Jeannie and Bewitched and then practice, practice, practice until suddenly women just appear in her bedroom.

I'm not entirely sure why Mr Savage thinks the BF is in the catbird seat here and deserves the snark of the conclusion. Does he sincerely assert that doubling the quantity of jealousy in a relationship improves the relationship if it brings about an equitable share? Perhaps I shall lose sleep from pondering the idea. Obviously it's possible that this is playing right into the worse aspects of the BF's character and he does deserve it, but it seems like an appraisal that might emanate from Alexander VI.

Remaining in that general time frame, though, the advice would seem to advocate for a system of negotiation between partners in which it would be to advantage not to respond to a partner's avowal of a proclivity that suits one's taste with an admission of the same, but with an offer to be GGG about it - if we're going to deal in turns.

Dan, did you edit something important out of this letter? Near as I can tell, Boyfriend is doing the heavy lifting of trying to bring home a girl for Letter Writer's benefit -- yes, for his benefit too, but at Letter Writer's behest. What exactly about his actions make him fair game for revenge jealousy?

If she wants a girl in her bed, she has to either a) go get one herself, or b) be cool with her boyfriend getting one for her. She is uncomfortable with either of those. In that case, she isn't going to get what she wants.

Sounds to me like Letter Writer is jealous over the prospect of Boyfriend possibly finding a third person a little too interesting, and going off and doing things without Letter Writer being part of the picture. He hasn't actually done anything of the sort, based strictly on what's in the letter. Yet you suggest a solution where Letter Writer goes off and has fun without Boyfriend in the picture. If you are going to indulge in sauce-for-the-gander paybacks, then fairness dictates that Boyfriend also should be able to go off and have threesomes of his own that don't involve Letter Writer -- pretty much exactly what she dreads.

Sure, maybe he might go for that deal ("we're a couple; they're a couple; I'll swap in for them if she'll swap in for us.") But it isn't equitable, strictly speaking; and carries an element of unfairly provoking jealousy in her boyfriend. If she wants to be free to fuck around without him in the picture, then she had better be cool with granting him the same freedom. If she can't deal with it, then she has no business asking it of him. Well, she can ask; he might be delighted. But if he isn't, she has no leg to stand on about feeling resentful that he won't grant in return what she wouldn't grant him in the first place.

Christ, I know this is an old one, but still.

Don't fucking start with women in a three way. Date women yourself, one on one, if you're really curious.

And I can say as a bi woman, I ran far far far fucking far away from asshat couples who wanted to set up The Guy's fetish for Two Women. Maybe some of them were like this -- but as Dan points out, having him ask while you fume will set all of my alarms jangling over this scenario.

My standard answer became "No threesomes with straight guys, ever."

Yeesh. Yuck. Ick.

Best bet may be to try a swinger site. My hubby and I swing as well as just have another female join us. We have met some great couples and a few really nice women as well. There is one woman whom we have known for almost 9 years now and we are friends outside of the bedroom as well as enjoying each other in the bedroom. Also, do to some health issues, I am unable to satisfy my hubby on a regular basis and our three-some partner is more than willing to fill in for me from time to time and I don't worry that she's trying to steal my man, lol.

If the LW doesn't want to take the lead herself, she could always watch reruns of I Dream of Jeannie and Bewitched and then practice, practice, practice until suddenly women just appear in her bedroom.

As a piece of sarcasm this certainly deserves praise.

I ran far far far fucking far away from asshat couples who wanted to set up The Guy's fetish for Two Women. [...] My standard answer became "No threesomes with straight guys, ever."

BEG, I'm uncertain as to your underlying rationale here. Is it because the guy is enjoying it more, the woman isn't enjoying it enough, or just because the guy enjoys it, or because he's straight? Your comments reads as if your problem with a threesome involving a guy is that involves a guy. Surely in considering a threesome involving two women and a man you did consider that the man in question is, in all probability, interested in women? ;)

I would think the rule would turn out to be, "No threesomes with straight couples," not straight guys, for the reasons hinted at above: the woman in the couple isn't in fact into women, so it becomes all about two women servicing the guy while not getting enjoyment themselves. The girlfriend is maybe gritting her teeth through the whole experience, and the third is maybe treated like an appliance for the benefit of the man, rather than as an equal partner, in terms of who is getting pleasured. So I can see why you would stay away from straight couples.

But even if the guy is straight, if his girlfriend is bi, where's the problem? You have two women who are at least as interested in each other as they are in him. Is he not allowed to have as much fun as the two of you? How would it be different if he happened to be bi? The situation would still consist of two women and one man who is interested in women.

In either scenario, it appears that the problem arises not when the boyfriend is straight, but when the girlfriend is.

Reverse the ratios and the principle remains the same: the two who are the same sex need to be bi, so that they are interested in each other as much as they are interested in the single person of opposite sex. The one person of opposite sex only needs to be into the sex of the other two.

"Why can't girls just appear in my bedroom?"

The question that defined my young adulthood.

Missed my point, seeker.

Threesomes with het guys are /tiresome/. It is all about them. Threesomes with bi men (hey, I'd go for gay men, but now they're not interested ;) ) will be interested in all participants. I had my fill of ooh, let's watch the women fool around, or ooh, you take that end I'll take this one, so we won't touch each other from ineffably /stupid/ het guys.

Three ways with women -- the most fun, at least IME.

BEG, it seems that your problem isn't het boys, it's that you pick couples with a shitty het boy lover in 'em. (I also second what avast2006 said @10 regarding the woman being straight, btw. Your own comment regarding MM 3somes focusing on you or each other speak for themselves.)

Given that you'd far rather be with two other women or bi guys anyways then maybe you are self-selecting for failure with MF couples. ;) Also, given the fact that you're annoyed with the guy even watching you with the other woman I think it's a fairly safe bet that you really don't even want a het guy in the room at all. Your tastes are your tastes and, frankly, I hope that they get fulfilled as often as is humanly possible and that you die of an orgasm-induced heart failure at age 166. All I smilingly ask is that you not slag us hopeful-of-a-threesome-who'd-also-make-a-good-job-of-it straight boys along the way. Deal?

As I said, IME. And the scenario as described by the OP? Hell yes, I'd run the hell away from that even if I'd only had positive MFF experiences.

Be that as it may, again IME (which I said before), the best threesomes are without het guys. And I won't apologize for that stance. I don't seek out MF couples, either.

"And I won't apologize for that stance."

Oh? Not even if I do ..... THIS??????
http://harveymillican.files.wordpress.co…

@12: "I had my fill of ooh, let's watch the women fool around,"

Okay, you've answered one of my questions. Being watched while the two women fool around annoys you. In other words, the het guy ISN'T allowed to have as much fun as the women. Thanks for your candor.

Now, how is an FFM with a straight M different from an FFM with a bi M? Is the bi M not going to watch the two women fool around? Is he not going to enjoy watching?

The whole "let's be careful to not touch each other" thing can only happen between two people of the same sex, at least one of whom is strictly hetero.** Granted, het guys are probably more twitchy about the touching each other thing, and het women more fluid about it, but the problem still is two people whose sex matches but whose orientation doesn't. When that happens to be two females, you are more likely to get either a) the girlfriend gritting her teeth through the whole performance, or b) the girlfriend making a huge deal out of directing all the attention onto the boyfriend (who, cluelessly, is only too happy to receive it and think himself adored and lucky), while staying away from you because she isn't interested in you herself. But again the problem is not that the guy is het, but that the threesome is composed incorrectly.

You need a composition where each person is happily interested in both of the other two. That requires the two people of the same sex to be bi, or all three to be homosexual.

(** or possibly between, say, a gay guy and a woman, but I'm having trouble figuring out who the third person of the threesome would be in that case and why you would ever compose it that way.)

*wanders into thread* Guys, you are not going to convince BEG to give het guy 3 ways another shot by lecturing her about better search criteria, because she does not seem to be feeling a real lack of het guy 3 ways in her life.

That there are het guys out there doing 3 ways wrong and ruining it for the rest of you is just something you have to live with.

Also, as het guys who like 3 ways, you might be better served writing long missives to any het guys reading here on how to do it right. Not treating your third like an object in a porno there to act out scenes for you seems like a theme here, for example.

I agree with BEG. I'd run the hell away from any het-male/bi-female couple proposing a threesome... particularly if the girl hasn't ever been with a woman before.

IPJ @17: "Guys, you are not going to convince BEG to give het guy 3 ways another shot by lecturing her about better search criteria"

seeker@13: "Your tastes are your tastes and, frankly, I hope that they get fulfilled as often as is humanly possible and that you die of an orgasm-induced heart failure at age 166."
Yeah, I'm a hectoring monster, me.

Your advice to BEG: You're probably self-selecting for failure, :).

Your advice to me: I shouldn't call you a hectoring monster. (If "you are not going to convince" can be construed as "hectoring monster.")

Your advice to all these het guys giving lousy 3-ways, whom you seem happy to agree exist and are ruining it for the rest of you: __?__

Frankly, I don't think that lousy, greedy lays who don't want to learn how not to be that way are really SL's demographic. I don't talk to people who aren't in the room.

Look, there's nothing wrong, zip, zero wrong with BEG not wanting anything to do with het boys. But there is something wrong with her basically saying, "hey, het boys suck at this", which is her message. Part of the problem with us nice progressive types is that we tend to miss shitty essentialism (or not give a fuck, thus unnecessarily feeding RWers complaints about hypocrisy) when it's aimed at not-the-usual-targets. BEG has basically said, "I don't like having het guys in threesomes, they really suck at it and I even hate it when they watch". Fine. Take out "het guys" and put in "Chinese guys" or "black guys" and you see it's a really douchy thing to say. She's free to fuck who she wants and decline who she wants (thank Baal), but to take and identifiable group and slag them as sexually useless in a given context and speak of how she can't even stand to have them there is, at minimum, goddamned rude and socially clueless.

If a straight guy had complained that he hated bi women in threesomes because they made it all about the women we'd see him being called out on it, so I don't see why we should cut BEG slack simply because she has different private parts. Fact is, she seems to have a gripe about sex and straight guys. Fine. That doesn't make all straight guys selfish asses.

@17: It's okay, it's entirely a hypothetical exercise for me, anyway. The likelihood of a threesome of any sort in my future is none to laughably none. (vanilla, happily married for 20-plus years) I'm not going to tell BEG that she didn't experience what she says she experienced, but I suspect that how it felt from her perspective may not have matched what was going on in the other people's experience, let alone have been The Objective Truth of the situation.

What makes you think that anything I write to these hypothetical het guy assholes who are ruining it for everyone else will ever be read by one of them? I'm having a conversation with someone who is actually (if virtually) here.