Why does the term "unicorn" bother me so much?

You could, perhaps, share her OKC profile ID?

cough. cough. Bullshit. No pic = you don't exist.

Man, why aren't teachers allowed to be people after-hours?

@1 I'm sure it's not because you're bigoted against unicorns or anything. It's just that horses have no business growing a horn. It's unnatural.

This "unicorn" stuff and that Cavalia ad together are kind of freaking me out.

That's a long winded, picky unicorn. I dunno, she might be hot & probably means well, but all those conditions & wordy advice is a turnoff.

Can someone explain the possible accusations of hypocrisy? I don't get it.

And, overall, I'm with @7. I mean, I also have criteria I use to figure out if I'm going to reply to someone's OKC message (because otherwise I'd spend my day on there, instead of on Slog :-), but I know those criteria are essentially arbitrary, and I don't hold them up as guidelines everyone should follow.

Also, this just pissed me off: "And I want people in relationships who can sometimes make things uncomfortable with their emotions and their shame to stop it!" God forbid people should express actual emotions (even shame), and interfere with her hot sex for fifteen minutes. Whatever.

If I didn't think it was difficult to hook up with a unicorn before, I sure do now.

The only thing I really want to know from this LW is her Penny and Marco story, if they ever meet up. (Though P&M are probably drowning in unicorns by now...)

Control freak.

@10: yes, this.

Geez, tough crowd today. I thought it was a good letter, myself. I definitely agree the MMF unicorn (the hot bi boy) is a lot harder to find, though. Gay boys that will (grudgingly) play with a couple, sure. Actual bi guys who want to play with both...not so much.

I'm with #4. I don't know why certain professions (other than legislators or judges, not that those are valid either) are so tied to not being human in off-the-clock life.

UNYC: I don't get the "hypocrisy" concern. Is the issue that by blurring your face, you're worried that people will accuse you of being hypocritical about point #3? That point explicitly allowed for blurred out photos, so blurring out your photo would be consistent.

Then again, I freely admit my viewpoint is biased. I just want to see the shiny.

@16 People are a little insane about teachers, maybe because we spend our on-the-clock lives serving as culture-transmitters, ie role models. We're technically allowed to BE human, but discouraged from being seen to be so. My school district, for example, advises that we're better off not HAVING facebook. A teacher in your lovely country was fired last year for posting a picture of a pint of Guiness on her Facebook. This unicorn is entirely right to worry about making herself too public - although she should also be aware that her art photography website may be grounds for withdrawal of certification in some jurisdictions.

For all the people saying "you're a pansy for not sending a pic:" the SLLOTD is a fuckload more public than OKC.

Also: I think this letter is actually quite useful for any people out there who are interested in becoming unicorns. I'm sure there are plenty of girls (and guys!) out there who will value this as a valid guide--not as "you must do all these things" but things to think about when scoping out a couple. Maybe you DO want to go out for drinks with the couple, but just diving in without even thinking about the weird date-cum-job-interview vibe you're creating in your first encounter can make the whole thing go off and possibly even turn you off of it entirely. I think this letter offers some valuable tips and experience for anyone thinking of going into the horn-wearing business.

@4 & 16- Please- think of the children! Oh, the children!

Also: @8: Did you read the last paragraph? The one where she said she can't speak for all unicorns, and this is just how she handles things? Weird how she already mentioned that she isn't trying to lay down guidelines for all unicorns.

I had no idea OKC was essentially "Hot or Not" with profiles. Jeez.

Her suggestions are way to specific to her personality to be of any use to anyone else. #5 specifically gets under my skin. "Don't take me out for drinks, that makes it feel like a job interview. Invite me to do something you would do with your friends." Y'mean, like go out and have some drinks? I think it's fair to assume that sounds far less awkward than a LAN party, for instance.

I don't find the LW overbearing, though I admit she probably wouldn't give me a second look where I ever to start an OKC profile... She has the right to follow her own rules, and she does say at the end that her rules are not supposed to be everybody else's. If she's happy with the results she's had thus far with these rules, well, that's fine.

Interestingly, I probably could be a unicorn, in the sense that it would be fine with me to play with the husband as long as the wife is interested in what I'm doing. But I wouldn't be a five-star one, because my interest would indeed be in the wife's pleasure, not her husband's. (I was in an MMF threesome once, but both M's were straight and were simply interested in cooperating with the F. I also was in an MFF once, and curiously also both F's weren't interested in playing with each other. And thus far that's as far as my threesome experience goes.)

This author is a terrible writer and shouldn't be teaching people how to do shit, because she is an uppity asshole.

A dear friend of mine lost his teaching job at an allegedly extremely liberal private high school in northern California because one of his students managed to dig up an old livejournal post by one of his friends that talked about doing drugs and kinky sex at Burning Man and mentioned him by name. The post was well over 5 years old, required digging through several pages of google results to find... and they fired him that day.

Sadly, Ms. Unicorn NYC is not even a little incorrect to be worried about her job in this scenario. People get remarkably stupid about this.

@23, Just for the purpose of clarity, my understanding is if the two guys in a 3-way are only interested in the lady, it would be an MFM, with the female in the middle. If it is MMF, the understanding is that the guys go both ways.

Am I the only one who's bullshit meter is ringing? "Oh...I'm so hot I've included a photo and they're so hot their photo is almost as good as mine and we're gonna get it onnnn...." Sounds like some weird new social network Penthouse Forum. And, we all know those stories were true.

You guys, you guys. She wrote a perfectly wonderful letter—insightful, lots of good tips for flailing couples out there who can't seem to find a third. And she owns it, says she doesn't speak for all, but this is what she looks for in a couple—decent treatment, people she could be friends with, both parties equally excited, and no couch potatoes who want a third to materialize, as if by magic, naked in the living room.

It's good advice—and I saw the pic, and it's amazing, she's amazing, but you'll have to take my word for it.

@21 (and Dan), yeah, I missed the line where she noted that she was only speaking for herself. Sorry.

I live in a world where there are plenty of insanely hot, unicorn teachers out there just teaching the kids and banging the couples. All day and all night. Could do a lot worse, world-wise.

I think it was kind of her to offer some tips that she finds helpful.

She sounds lovely enough from a personality perspective. I guess the physical "daaaaaaaaaaamn" determination is dependent upon the observer. But, I'd hazard a guess that she has atleast one "daaaaaaaaaaamn" worthy feature, as I've never seen a human who didn't have one.

With these unicorns, I wonder if part of the problem is the question of money. If everyone expects that the couple is treating the unicorn on the date, then the unicorn may not feel free to suggest alternative activities that she finds more appealing. But if everyone is paying their own way, then the unicorn could say -- "hey, are either or both of you free on Friday? There's this great band I've been wanting to hear..."

I enjoyed both letters and I think that that threesome MUST happen (and the details SHOULD be provided for our voyeristic enjoyment). People who think that highly of themselves - even if they are hot (though the couple are not HOT HOT to me - I prefer a little more woman to my woman) - should be together so that the rest of us can enjoy our flaws.

Let me see if I get this straight:
1 - LW poo-poos the idea that unicorns are hard to find and catch.
2 - LW offers as evidence that she is easy to catch.
3 - LW goes on for almost a thousand words setting conditions.

Ooooooooookay.

How would showing a picture with her face blurred out compromise her job security? We know she's a female teacher in NY and that's about it. We don't know her identity.

But yeah, I just wanted to see her naked too.

The LW is entitled to set as many conditions as she wants, and can be as arbitrary or annoying or helpful as she wants. What's amusing, though, is that she doesn't recognize herself as a very specific type we all run into in any given human activity: a person who sends out mandatory requirements not as single spies but in battalions, each one wearing a hat that says, "don't mind me, I'm just a recommendation!".

Total. Manic. Control freak.

And thumbs up to @30!

@28 - like I said, she probably means well. Okay, almost certainly. But style matters! Say it short, say it clear. Especially on da Web.

"How you write is what you write."
- Some old pedant.

And to the ladies looking for the elusive male unicorn who's up for a FMF, here's some advice on how to close the deal based on my years of experience with this scenario.

1) When I arrive at your place, make sure you are actually two women rather than one woman and one man with a gun who takes my wallet, ties me up, and leaves.

2) If this is going to cost me $500, please say so upfront so I know to stop at the ATM beforehand.

3) No, I don't have any meth or cocaine, but had you told me that's a requirement ahead of time, I'd have found some.

4) Sores are fine, but not if they are oozing. Sorry, I'm kind of squeamish about that.

5) I refuse to have sex with a pair of women who don't show up. In order to enjoy what I'm cooking up for you, yes, you'll actually need to be present at the dinner table.

Anyway, those are just a few tips to make sure we all have a good time. Happy unicorn hunting!

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.

Holy SHIT can I get an amen? If I had a brick for every time I've seen the phrase "She's bi, he's straight" I would have a lot of bricks.

@39 lol

Curious if UNYC gives a shit about the situation where the guy is the one who is feeling tentative. (Yeah, I know, that never happens. Or does it? Bi wife feeling the itch, straight husband not too keen on the idea of sharing at all, but wife suggests a second woman to make it theoretically more interesting and less threatening to him, in the same way that a second man would be a complete non-starter on both counts.)

If so, what in the email would be the tip-off? If not, why not?

@42 maybe you can read something into her statement that "people in relationships" have emotional issues. Since she didn't say women, specifically, then she may be equally concerned about men who aren't really up for it.

For goodness sake, the whole point of Savage Love is that we write the rules out here so that everyone can break (or keep) them in the real world without worrying about it too much. Being explicit is good (here), because it means you don't have to run into awkward situations there.
I used to have enough trouble working out where to take women on perfectly ordinary straight dates. A little advice on where to take a woman on a slightly out-of-the-ordinary threesome date is very useful. Take it or leave it, but don't bitch about it.

I don't understand why she's so fussed about being asked out for a drink. I take my "real friends" out for drinks all the time!

As an east coast unicorn myself, I agree with UNYC. I have ways in which I differ from her in my own preferences, but she makes some VERY good points.

Here's where I differ:

- You won't find me on OkCupid - I don't list myself as bi there, because I also use it for "traditional" dating and I'm not out as bi in public because I don't date women. Just sleep with them. :) I do post as a w4mw on CL, and respond to well-written and engaging mw4w ads. Once you get good at weeding out the fakers, it's not terribly hard to find quality responses. I'll usually get about 50 responses to my ad, email maybe 5 of them a few times, and eventually it will work out with 1 or 2 of the couples.

-I think getting a drink is totally fine. Sure, there are other creative things to do (especially in big cities) but frankly I don't want to be in a situation where I can't turn on my heel and walk out in a heartbeat. Bars are good for that, since I probably didn't pay anything to get in. Plus it's only awkward if you haven't done enough screening upfront, or if you let it be. Maybe I just don't get weirded out by blind dates anymore thanks to online dating.

-One of the couples I have hooked up with consists of a bi male and bi female, and they hook up with a bi male from time to time as well. Maybe I just know more of them, but I've always found that bi men, or even men okay with hand or oral contact only are easier to find than truly attractive, single bi women. The bi women seem to end up in a couple pretty quickly, as evidenced by the amount of couples looking for single women!

Also, for those of you being negative about #2 - let me tell you from experience that the single best indicator of whether the threesome will work is whether the women get along. If I ever get a feeling that either she is not on the same page as he is, or that she and I don't connect, it's just not going to work. Maybe that means I miss out on some potentially good things, but the worst threesomes I've had were the ones where I had an initial gut feeling that the woman wasn't as into IT or ME as the man, and you just can't enjoy yourself if that's what's running through your mind while he's banging you. Plus, women who aren't actually into it give shitty head. Just saying. :)

Not getting the hostility. The LW offers helpful advice that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. So it's subjective--is there any advice that isn't? And as for being too wordy--she's not just making recommendations, she's explaining why they matter to her. That takes a bit of space. And her recommendations are, to recap: try OKCupid; make sure the wife is really into it; have a decent picture; establish a friendly connection before a sexual one; and don't make the first meeting awkward.

But apparently unicorns--and other thirds, I assume--are expected to shut up and put out and not get all boring with this "long winded picky...chick stuff".

After reading that whole thing I'm really glad masturbation satisfies me. Dealing with 1% of that shit to get off would give me a headache. I'd rather continue with the fantasy that it's always hot all the time and I'm never going to find 2 chicks who want to do it with me unless I pay them a good sum of cash. Seems less expensive in the long run.

Ahh. 46 and the "I don't date women, I just fuck them". And then we have piles of letters bitching about how biphobic lesbians are.

I think most of this is perfectly reasonable. I've been in so many awkward situations with couples, it's a wonder I even have an ad up on dating sites advertising my availability.
What I'm surprised about is the comments about trying to find bi men. I know so many single bi men who'd love to find couples to play with.

@50: Conventional wisdom has long held that men tend to be huge sluts who have trouble throwing off their testicles' control over them.

Saying that the bi male is the new unicorn is backwards. It's the couple consisting of a bi male and a female that is so rare. Finding single bi males to complete your MMF is easy. Getting your straight male partner to go along with an MMF? Yeah, I bet that's damn near impossible.

I think "no single males" is available as a default wallpaper for your profile on most dating sites.

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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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.

+

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.

=
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.

I'm just thinking if I was a hot chick looking to be in a bunch of threesomes, I would be a bit picky too. If not just for the sake of being picky and only being with the best. There are lots of couples out there looking for unicorns so she would have a lot of options. Why not pick the best of the best?

Um, so she would feel MORE awkward and obligated to work harder to charm TWO people, but less awkward going to a concert, dinner, or something no one can walk away from with their friends and people who might not know whats going on…. ok