Your last SLLOTD struck my fancy and I responded to the couple looking for a unicorn in NYC. I am somewhat familiar with the unicorn community. I didn’t choose to be labeled a unicorn; flattered, yes, but it’s not the only thing I’m interested in. Most of the time I’m just happy to be a horse. In fact, I had a conversation recently with a friend in which we observed that the term “unicorn” doesn’t even accurately apply to bi women anymore—single, hot, up-for-threesomes bi women—because they seem so common these days. The new unicorn is the bi-male, Dan, because a decent (everyone equally involved) MMF threeway is so much harder to put together than an FFM one.
I wrote to Penny&Marco and am in contact with them and I’ve been offering them some advice based on my experiences as a “unicorn” (by the more accepted female definition) in NYC and thought maybe you’d be interested in hearing my advice and sharing it with your readers. I’ve been reading your column for the last 14 years and am so indescribably grateful for your advice that I have to offer at any opportunity I might have to help by sharing my experiences. The pic I’ve enclosed, btw, is hopefully just to prove my assertion that I fit the term “unicorn,” at least for the hot part, if you’re going to accept my advice as any sort of guest “expert.” Here goes:
1. My first tip is to use OkCupid. Many people think it’s only for this or that type of dater. The problem is that you have to stay on the site for a few months in order for it to adapt to your needs (e.g. if you’re rated in the top 50% of attractiveness, you are only shown to others in the top 50%; elitist sure, but just an example of how it helps narrow it down). Many people sign up and expect it to work right away or they give up. I’ve been up on it for about two years, I get a lot of messages from couples and people in open relationships because I am in the system as a bi-female who doesn’t believe in monogamy and is cool with open relationships, among many other subtle indicators of who I’m interested in and who should be interested in me. That OKC even allows these indicators may make them pretty unique in the dating site realm. That’s where couples should start.
2. For those that contact me: If you start out with, “My wife and I were checking out your profile and pictures…”, I will not even bother to respond. That’s the first red flag for me to sort out people I don’t want to see. I don’t want to be with a woman who is unsure, a little curious, or wants to give her husband an anniversary gift by tolerating my presence in their bedroom. The enthusiasm of the female half of the couple is the most important evidence I’m looking for. Basically, if the “wife” is the one searching out potential matches and starting the conversation, I might consider it.
3. Pictures are essential. Everyone is terribly afraid that (gasp!) someone they know or a family member will happen to see their profile and realize they want one of the most obvious and commonplace sexual fantasies that couples have. Truth is, anyone that stumbles upon your profile is someone who is looking for a couple because they want to be a third person themselves. Being embarrassed about your completely normal and mundane kink just makes it that much harder to find that unicorn you’re looking for. Crop out your heads or blur your faces, but post something that shows you have personality; something that shows you have fun together as a couple; something that tells me you want a threesome because you guys are adventurous and interesting and can’t keep your awesomeness to yourselves any longer. Be prepared to send the unedited photos because it will be the first thing I ask for if I contact you.
4. Threeways are complicated and even ones that are hot rarely go perfectly. I look for a relative balance of attraction between all parties, but even with that, preexisting relationships can complicate things and make someone feel excluded at some point. The best ones seem to involve people with similar levels of attraction and similar relationships… or lacks thereof. (Sorry, but that means the best threeways usually involve two unicorns and a stallion.) When I’m meeting a couple, I’m looking for the same qualities I look for in anyone I might sleep with. Which for me means that I have to like you (both) enough to want to be friends and hang out even if we weren’t sleeping together. Sure, we probably won’t hang out without the sex, I know, but I still won’t sleep with anyone I wouldn’t want to hang out with, no matter how hot you might be by other standards. Makes sense, right? Still, I think it is often neglected when couples aren’t used to “dating” with the sex being the primary goal and no pretense of a relationship.
5. I don’t want to “meet you both for a drink.” Not because I’m worried for my safety or because playing is off the table, or that I don’t like meeting new people, or drinks. I don’t want to meet you for a drink because going on a semi-blind date is awkward enough with one person; two is just that much worse. I don’t want to sit and have drinks and feel pressured to charm two people in what amounts to an interview for a job I don’t even know if I want. So let’s just pretend we’re all hanging out as friends. Maybe you don’t want to invite someone you don’t know to a dinner party or the movies, but try to be a little creative. A concert, a stand-up comedy club, something you might go do with your real friends. Invite your real friends too if you’re not terrified of what they might deduce (you don’t have to tell them).
I’m not laying out these rules because I speak for all “unicorns.” I’m just letting you know what I look for when I consider donning my horn. I just want things to be simple, hot, and fun! And I want people in relationships who can sometimes make things uncomfortable with their emotions and their shame to stop it! The whole thing is about having fun and sharing your awesomeness with the world!
Unicorn NYC
I wrote back to UNYC and asked her if I could share her picture—which was something else—with “Savage Love” readers. She responded:
I don’t want to undermine my credibility here, but I’m reluctant to share the photo. I’m a public school teacher, you see, and while the black-circle-treatment would normally be fine even with that in mind, I’m worried offering the picture with my identity hidden will then expose me to accusations of hypocrisy. I’m not afraid of my identity being out there and my views on sexuality being out in the open (as they are on OKCupid), and I already have partial-nude self-portraits of myself on my photography portfolio website, but unfortunately combining the two in the same place could actually put my job in danger.—UNYC
I am just blown away by the hostility to UNYC’s clear communication about how she approaches her lifestyle and process. All of you are being like the guys who will call a woman a controlling bitch if she nicely asks you to get off her foot when you’re standing on it. “I’ll stand where i want and don’t tell me how to do it.” It’s _her_ foot. And it’s her life, and she sounds like she has great, clear boundaries and excellent communication – makes it safe for everyone.
But it also means that y’all who can’t/don’t want to communicate and process in the ways that she is willing to won’t ever get near her. And if she doesn’t like you and doesn’t want to do you? You won’t get near her. An excellent call on her part. So what’s with the hostility? Feeling rejected/inadequate? Because if her way just doesn’t do it for you, no problem, walk away.
And if you just don’t want to be bothered with self-awareness, communication, someone who knows what their boundaries are and takes good care of themselves, welcome to a world of screwed-up drama and hurt feelings and crazy badness. Real life isn’t porn.
What if meeting for a drink at a bar IS what I often do with friends? And what if my wife and I WERE looking at her profile. In my experience, these things are much better when they’re fun, playful and laid back. This woman sounds like none of those things.
Internet daying to find an LTR makes sense in many ways but it’s so much less hot than meeting someone randomly and flirting madly.
So why do it if you’re a hot young lady up for a fling with a couple? Your random flirting will have a fantastic success rate, and it’ll be hot! Why waste your time with people who may only be attractive in pixel format?
That’s just depressing about OKCupid. I can see it from the male point of view–men are visual creatures and physical appearance is important to them. But generally women are less focused on appearance–it seems unfair that a very beautiful woman would be screened from being able to see a perfectly wonderful guy who might not have the most attractive nose, or whatever.
I’m not sure why everyone is so aggravated by this LW. She seems perfectly reasonable and real to me. (With the possible exception of the “I don’t want to have drinks with you” thing, but she does emphasize that is just her personal peeve.)
I’m a bi girl who occasionally seeks out MF couples for threesomes. And, I may add, have successfully “found” women for me and my boyfriend to have threesomes with.
There are a few simple rules for how to find sex partners of any kind and they also (shocking, I know) apply to bi women you want for your MF threesome.
– Be nice, open, friendly and respectful.
– Be patient and willing to put in some time to look as well as time to email/ talk and get to know the basics.
– Be as specific and honest as possible about what you’re looking for. (Kinks, limits, likes, dislikes…)
– Don’t act as if you’re ashamed of what you’re doing. (And by extension think she is “dirty” and are ashamed of her.)
– Just because she is potentially into a threesome and you think she’s attractive does not mean she is obligated to have a threesome with YOU.
– Finally, for the love of god, guys don’t hit women you barely know up for threesomes out of the blue, just because you happen to know they are bi. It’s all in the build-up and the presentation. Really.
– Ask yourself this, what’s in it for HER?
– Finally when attending a threesome, be a gracious guest and gracious hosts. A threesome is no time for selfishness and neurosis.
Great job, Jenny. There’s a world of difference between what you wrote and what the LW wrote. She comes off as if she’s doing everyone a favor and isn’t looking because she likes it herself. It’s distasteful.
My hubby and I would probably never hook up with this unicorn because I hate dealing with the online crap (he takes care of it because he’s a sweetie/he likes doing it) as much as I love being with a woman. And we almost always do drinks with the women and couples we meet. It’s a low-key way to meet people and see if we click without the commitment of dinner or some activity date. If we all like each other, then we might have dinner/see a movie/go fuck each other.
However, I don’t have a problem with this woman’s list. It works for her and it works for the people she hooks up with. She seem to see herself as the prize a little bit, but maybe she’s just that good. I would prefer to be with people who are getting as much out of being with me and my husband as we are getting out of being with them.
As a fellow unicorn, I think UNYC’s letter is fine. I agree with some parts and not with others, but she clearly says she’s not speaking for everyone, so…what’s the big deal?
I agree that OK Cupid is one of the better ways to meet unicorns and that I’m really wary of couples where it seems that one partner (typically the dude, but not always) is much more interested in a threesome than the other. Unlike UNYC, though, I don’t mind letters that say “My wife and I” and don’t write those people off. I’m much more bothered by hearing from the woman but having her suggest “doing something special for her man for his birthday” or something similar. I’m not bi one day out of 365 to please someone else, and I’m not interested in fucking anyone who is.
Also, oh man, I do NOT want to commit to spending a whole evening with a couple when meeting them for the first time. I’d much rather meet for a drink or coffee. If we’re all feeling it, great, we keep having drinks and hanging out and play it by ear. If not, we have a drink, call it a night, and move on with our lives, no harm, no foul.
One thing I’d add is that Dan’s previous entry on this and many ISO unicorn ads discuss a unicorn being single and unattached. That always strikes me as strange. The couple in question is clearly monogamish, so why shouldn’t the unicorn be? I guess if people are really uncomfortable they should totally say so, but it seems like adding an unnecessary additional stumbling block to an already tough search process. Just my two cents.
Thank Christ I don’t have any interest in a three way – trying to navigate all the conditions that Princess here demands sounds fucking soul destroying.
@61 well said! The LW’s expectations are fine for her; other unicorns have other expectations, and that’s all good.
It’s about connection, and as really1points out @53, it’s really good that people who don’t match well with the LW can tell that early on. No connection = no fun for anyone.
@52
I’m a heteroflexible gal partnered with a bi guy. He loves sucking cock; and I think it’s great and love sharing that with him. Plus he loves to watch me fuck. How awesome is that? We have a “play-together only” agreement, in which we look for guys for everyone-involved MFM. We’re attractive, fit, educated. Yet, it’s a challenge to find a good bi male to be an ongoing third.
Ethically, I want them to either be single or have explicit permission. Most of the guys we encounter are partnered, and are looking to step out without their wife’s knowledge and consent. Not cool.
@62
It’s exactly the same with people looking for one on one. Women especially have a ton of responses to wade through and I don’t see this LW’s criteria as so unusual.
For the people wondering about the “hostility”, there’s a couple of possible reasons I can see. (I look for conventional dates on Internet dating sites, not threesomes, but the same rules apply.)
The first thing is that the point of meeting someone you’ve met on an Internet site for coffee/drinks first is so that you can check out whether the other person’s photos are of them and were taken in the last ten years, and otherwise find out whether each other are basically mutually attractive. None of us wants to spend a couple of hours with someone we don’t feel comfortable with, there’s less potential drama in not extending a coffee date than there is in cutting short something more elaborate, and it’s the easiest thing in the world to extend a coffee date into something more “creative” if you both like each other. I know coffee dates can be job-interview-like, but better 15 minutes of that than 2 hours of it, and I’m not so desparate for any chance of getting laid that I’ll buy concert tickets for a stranger from an Internet dating site without seeing her in person first. If she doesn’t want to do coffee first, that’s her prerogative, but it’d be a yellow flag for me.
The second issue is the part in paragraph five where she suggests that you introduce her to your “real” friends without having a chance to vet her first and possibly by misleading your friends about the true situation. That comes across to me as very creepy. If I’m bringing friends to meet someone who I met on an Internet dating site and whom I’ve never met in person before, you’d better believe that I’m telling my friends exactly what they’re getting into. It would be REALLY unfair to my friends not to do that. And someone who would suggest that I should mislead my friends in a situation like this is not someone I want to get skin-to-skin with.
Why are so many people stoning the unicorn? She purely expresses her opinion and her wishes. She has the right and the opportunity to be picky. If you feel offended by her choices, then she ain’t for you. End of story. In my opinion her comments are interesting, honest and possibly helpful to this female part of a couple on aff. I have already opened an OKC account. Thanks for the tips.
Wow, LW managed to come off as arrogant, picky and controlling. It’s an attractiveness trifecta!
Seriously, some of her advice is just horribly bad. Dismissing a couple because they begin with “My wife and I were looking at your profile…” Huh? I can understand the LW’s being suspicious that the husband might be pushing the wife into something, but it would seem that there would be ways of probing further while not narrowing the pool of potential sex partners over a phrase like “My wife and I…”
@68, I don’t think that pointing out that a different approach would work better for her, speaking only for herself, is terrible advice. I’m okay with “My wife and I,” but it’s not going to hurt anyone’s chances with me or any other unicorn I know to get an email that instead starts “My husband and I.” Actually, I have to say that it would probably help their chances with me even though I’m not opposed to the opposite.
As far as her “narrowing the pool of potential sex partners,” narrowing the pool is an essential part of the process for unicorns. There is far, FAR more demand than supply. That’s not a drawback for them, it’s a drawback for the couples, hence giving them a heads up.
I’m so psyched to see so many unicorns out there! As a guy who, like @46, doesn’t date MOTSS and only fucks them, I’m also kind of psyched to find out I’m a unicorn. I think @52 is much more on the mark.
IMHO, the real unicorns are like @64 – women who are open to and into bi or heteroflexible guys. There are probably lots and lots of bi guys in couples but their F partners don’t know it.
Also, @49: why should the lesbians get all upset about this? When I’ve been single, I’ve found plenty of gay guys who were perfectly happy to have a romp with a guy like me. If the Lesbians weren’t insistent on falling madly in love after the first date and recognized that it is just for sex, then what the heck? I have a lesbian friend who has a very very occasional taste for men, and when we get it on, it’s not a problem that it’s really only for sex.
I’m so psyched to see so many unicorns out there! As a guy who, like @46, doesn’t date MOTSS and only fucks them, I’m also kind of psyched to find out I’m a unicorn. I think @52 is much more on the mark.
IMHO, the real unicorns are like @64 – women who are open to and into bi or heteroflexible guys. There are probably lots and lots of bi guys in couples but their F partners don’t know it.
Also, @49: why should the lesbians get all upset about this? When I’ve been single, I’ve found plenty of gay guys who were perfectly happy to have a romp with a guy like me. If the Lesbians weren’t insistent on falling madly in love after the first date and recognized that it is just for sex, then what the heck? I have a lesbian friend who has a very very occasional taste for men, and when we get it on, it’s not a problem that it’s really only for sex.
Pirate Jenny (no. 57) is totally on the money. Actually, I’d totally prefer her letter to the one posted. It makes much more sense and is much more friendly, informative, and engaging.
So, I’m a bi woman in a married poly relationship. My husband and I sometimes look for secondaries. Oddly enough, most of them have been introduced to us by other people (as friends) and then it’s grown after that.
We do have an OKC profile, for each of us. However, at the risk of sounding overly general, I find that many (*not all*) of the women there are…um…challenging to meet and date. If you want to meet a guy, not so much of a problem (as long as you like geeks). But the ratio of men to women means that you have a wider selection of men, and many of the women have 1) very arbitrary criteria and 2) aren’t interested in talking, dating, or befriending men and/or women and/or You. Just the way it works…
There’s a number of people who take posters to task for supposedly hating on the LW, asserting that she is being dissed for having parameters and setting them out. Problem is those critics are confusing the What issue (having those parameters, which is fine) and the How issue (setting out those parameters in a rather lordly, superior way, which the LW does).
Look, most of us want to have sex. And most of us (or at least the men) will hear more rejections than acceptances, and that’s just the numbers, so if you get refused, Deal. However most of us have some degree of pride and having somebody make you feel like not only a failed job applicant but a particularly unworthy job applicant is frustrating, and, depending on the wording, demeaning. The LW does come across as somebody “arrogant, picky and controlling” [@68] rather than helpful, and that’s causing some attitude-backlash. I have no doubt that the ‘tude combined with her assertion that unicorns are so common that they’re really horses isn’t helping either. (We’re not blind, you know. We can see the dissonance between “hell, getting with me and people like me is EASY!” and a list of requirements that goes on for almost a thousand words.)
And, speaking only for myself, I really despise (in any context) people who have set demands who want to lie to me and to themselves by calling them “recommendations”. That’s passive-aggressive therapy-speak bullshit.
Okay, I’ve re-read the letter, and I still don’t get it. Seeker @73, where you see passive-aggressive bullshit, I see engaging chattiness. I can’t find the word “recommendation” anywhere–in her introduction she says she is offering “advice”, yes, by way of a couple of observations and also a couple of “demands”, as you put it, that she has and that are announced as such (“for those that contact me”…emphasis on “me”). You’re free to approve of her sorting criteria or not. But I can’t find anything masquerading as something else. I actually started off trying to re-read the letter with the bias that the LW is entitled and picky, to try and get the slant you and others have, but it didn’t fly. If it’s all about tone, all I’m getting is helpful, chatty and honest. I certainly don’t feel the LW is lying to herself or to me.
Me, I’ve had two awkward blind dates over drinks and am not eager to repeat the experience, so I get her point about that. And as a married, male veteran of online rejection I’ve watched my wife’s inbox overflow with (often crass, inappropriate) interest, and I’ve learned that a) women basically control the game, and if you don’t like that then don’t play, and b) due to the sheer volume of interest in willing women online, their selection criteria are going to be of necessity a little arbitrary. I totally get needing to weed people out. Just the way it is. At least LW is cheerful and up-front about it.
i’d like the LW, and other people who have criteria that they will use to automatically reject people, know that even though you think you’re being clever in filtering out bad people, you are really just filtering in people who are manipulative and savy enough to press the right buttons to get you to do what they want.
@75 – that’s a good point. It has occurred to me before that there’s no way my husband or any of the other nice guys I know would make it past my rather arbitrary criteria. The emails my husband sends out to prospective women just don’t stand out enough. It’s hard to find a solution, though, since it’s not very inspiring to go out on lots of dates with guys who write boring notes.
Mostly I try to spend less time on dates with cute, witty OKC guys, and more time dating people I know from my real life BDSM social circle.
+
=
a long and contentious thread about how the assholes seem to do well and pleasant fellows don’t. One of the interesting bits of dating weirdness is how all repeat all of us have self-set requirements about what we will and won’t accept, and we all waive or ignore our own requirements and rules when we want to, i.e. when the person appeals to us enough. It’s not so much that we have rules but we have discretionary rules and the meat is in the discretion and not the rules themselves. Sort of like office policies are often applied: the rules apply to people that your boss doesn’t like, and don’t to those he does.
I second the comment that you can have excellent luck in the real world. (My best threesome ever was had with an ex fuck-buddy of my boyfriend’s.)
The thing is, if you’re a woman and if you clearly state your interest in threesomes, kinkier sex or even just plain vanilla sex on any online venue (Fetlife, OKCupid, Craigslist) you will be so flooded with replies that you can’t possibly review them all thoughtfully. Sorry, that’s just the reality of it.
I understand that this sucks for “nice guys.”
However many of these replies are wildly off the mark (men answering ads for women etc.), rude and entitled, or just plain inappropriate.
If I were to offer a word of advice it is this: Most of the replies I get seem rather random. Clearly the writer is more eager to just get with any woman than with me specifically. Which is fair enough, I suppose, but unless you want to humor me and fake personal interest, then don’t take rejection personally.
I’d recommend you approach it like this: Look for someone whose specific preferences align with your own. In your reply explain (and keep it brief) what your specific preferences are and why you’d be a good match. It let’s her know a.) that you actually read her profile, b.) if you’re likely to be compatible.