@204 Well said. He should make clear that his priority is to get her back to feeling safe, happy, and satisfied in their relationship.

I do want to elaborate on this: "reassure her that she, and she alone, is enough for him."

He should definitely reassure her that he's not looking to replace her or add anyone to their relationship.

But assuming he's still going to fantasize about other women (since people can't change what arouses them), do you think he should keep his mouth shut about that, or do you think he should admit to the ongoing fantasies, while indicating he will follow her lead as far as what they do in reality?

@ 207: What I don't get is *why* anyone would want to try a threesome and not go all-out with it: all inputs. If there's going to be that much quibbling about what's kosher and what's not orifice-wise, then they may as well keep the third person over there in the corner diddling themeselves as they watch. I can get it if the proviso is no kissing, but everything else is game. Why getting head from another woman is ok and fucking her is not (all the while the threesome is going down) is a rule is beyond me. Either do a threesome or don't do a threesome.

Some people are cut out for it psychologically, others are not. I still think that Heartbroken, despite her emotional pain, was actually turned on by her husband and the other woman in the threesome, and she's torn about that. I'm not buying that she was that repulsed by it going down right before her eyes. She could have spoken up. She just didn't want to, or, was too caught up in the moment herself to honestly protest what was transpiring.

She gets her sympathy and helpful advice. Now she needs to hash it out with her husband and keep it moving: yay or nay.

Too much drama.

@207 insensitive,

It's true that there's one shot in life, but this was about making the first attempt at many attempts to follow. Instead, Heartbroken is asking for help to deal with the failure.

Look at things from a slightly different paradigm, everyone knows if you play a game and break the rules, you lose.

Peace.

Eh

Bye!

@208, the point is that people can be afraid, even irrationally afraid, of all kinds of things, instaconte.

Have you ever watched a child learning to swim? I've helped several, and I've noticed they all kind of come up with strange security boundaries, even while we're still in shallow water and they couldn't possibly drown even if I weren't there. Some seem commonsensical, albeit unnecessary in shallow water: "keep holding my hand!" "Hold me by the waist!" "Be around!" Others are more surprising: "don't look away!" "let's always face the sun!" "please hold my Teddy Bear at all times!". The strangest one (and that from a boy who was already going to deeper waters and could float quite well) was "will you please keep thinking of me? If you keep thinking of me I know I won't sink."

I promised to keep thinking of him. Hell, I even did keep thinking of him, even though I'm entirely sure that my mental activity could not protect him.

And that's what happens with insecure people when they're taking their first baby steps into something new. They make rules that, from an unbiased perspective, are more to make themselves feel safer or better than actually solve any real problems.

So, when you want someone to start a new sex act they haven't done before, you have to be ready to deal with the 'baby steps' problem and expect strange reassurance/insecurity demands and rules. If all goes well, as the person gains confidence and feels freer in the new situation, these will weaken and disappear.

But at first -- call it a fetish if you will -- by all means do respect their rules. When you're helping a newbie, you should do anything to make them feel comfortable and in control -- or else they'll get scared and never come back. And yes, this means religiously respecting rules like "no kissing", "no penetration", and so on.

@194 anklosaur: WOW!!! We must be on the same page, musically! How did you know I've been playing Chopin? Opus 28, No. 15, "Raindrop" is my to-die-for favorite of all his Preludes.

Here's to birds, stars, and comets!

p.s. My love and I will be celebrating 30 glorious years together in 2012!
Nothing like seeing rockets and having one's glasses fog up while kissing!

@214 grizelda,

As long as you can get the kids out of the house!

Peace.

P.S. Wanna, wanna, wanna maaaake out.

Mesdames Cute/Erica - Your proposed conversation for the couple would not be a bad idea - if either half were the woman or man capable of saying or hearing such things. That seems about as improbable as the idea of the calculating and farsighted Mrs Lorrimer killing Mr Shaitana in Cards on the Table on the spur of the moment - not dans son caractere.

Ms Cute - as I'm sure you'll understand, when in good form, Ms Erica often reminds me of Miss Brodie's style of education - leading out what is already inside of the LWs.

Mr Avast - While I don't advocate such tactics in general, this couple needs a sharp shock if they are to survive and advance. I'd probably advise divorce simply because the situation has become so much worse than it need have been, which to my tired old eyes indicates a mismatch. But, as I am nothing if not flexible, I shall adjust the situation to something a little closer to equitable. She orders an escort and just happens to order a male instead of a female. Oops. Was it deliberate? As deliberate as his getting carried away.

Mr Ank - This is not a comment but an observation only. You seem rather fey of late. Have you any idea why?

Mr J - I thank you, but I am not unretiring. Besides, it would never work; I'd decline the threesome that would be bound to be proposed ere long, and ill feelings would result.

Just as a general remark, I notice that almost all the comments regarding threesomes involve a couple. What has anyone to say about the differences between such a threesome and one with no couple involved?

@221: Mr.Ven: Now THAT is an interesting idea.
I'd guess the capacity for drama and hysterics would go way down and the pure fun might go way up (but there'd be less potential for the excitement of the erotic rehash.)

I had a MFM threesome with two brothers once, so no couple was part of it, but the sibling rivalry/dynamic rendered the whole thing really rather odd. And not in an especially good way.

@222 nocute,

The classic fantasy: Being fought over by twins...

Peace.

@217, I think we're considering an alternate universe where the guy screwed up in the moment but is very sorry.

@218, I was dubious whether tit-for-tat is ever helpful, but then I remembered my anxiety when my husband is out late without calling... I have been known to do that back to him, semi-on-purpose, and it is a pretty effective lesson on how it feels not to know where a loved one is late at night. So maybe your "inadvertent" sexual violation would also be effective.

(@224 Not that this is a regular thing on either of our parts...)

@216 Married in MA: What kids? We don't have any---unless you mean the wild, crazy two of us, my babe and me!

At this point, I would really REALLY like to hear from Heartbroken's husband. I suspect that it would be along the lines of "I kow it wasn't what we agreed to, but she seemed fine with it at the time, she didn't object".

(does anyone else find it odd that she writes "P in her V" but is OK with the word fuck?)

I think that all of us around here often forget the fundamental fact about relationships-there are 2 people in a couple type relationship, and those 2 people are the only ones who know every nuance of what happens between them. Those of us outside of that relationship aren't going to understand every facet of that relationship, because we aren't part of it. That applies to the letterwriter, who has only given one incident upon which all of the esnuing uproar has been based. It similarly applies to Erica and her relationship with her husband. We know what Erica chooses to share, but we cannot presume that we know everything, and it is absolutely not appropriate for anyone here to attempt to tell Erica how she feels or should feel. I have a hunch that this very smart lady knows a bit more than us bystanders about her relationship. And anyone who's been paying attention to her should recognize that she damn sure knows herself.

@223: Not twins, just brothers.
And it was more like they were fighting amongst themselves, and I was the playing field on which their battle was being waged: ("oh yeah? well, watch what she does when I do *this*!")

It was my first, and for many years only threesome. And not at all what I would hope for.
But it does sound good.

@221/222/223

I had a similar experience to cute (they were friends, not brothers) and I also felt fought over. Despite my mental state (hash, ecstasy, meth, valium all mixed in there, plus just teenage hormones) I was pretty uncomfortable with the situation and ended up with just one of the two later on in the night. Being fought over is super sexy in theory but in practice it's actually a little scary.

@226 grizelda,

The kids are my particular impediment to stars and rockets (right then).

@228 nocute,

The guy fantasy of 2 beautiful twins fighting for your affections...

Peace.

@231 nocute,

Of course the reality is that keeping 2 people occupied in conversation, simultaneously, is difficult enough. But an adolescent (of any age hormone-beast) never allows reality to get in the way of a good fantasy.

Peace.

@232 nocute,

Ahh, but I give really good conversation...

Peace.

Very well done this week, Dan, Bravo! ALMOST as well done as using your amazing gay powers to forever associate the name of Santorum with...well, SANTORUM!

Letter no. 1: yes, the scenario as presented is nothing short of a RAPE once removed. If that were MY S.O., he'd not only never get another 3-some on my watch, he'd be fucking fortunate to get another 2-some with me.

@219 vennominion,

Which particular definition of fey did you mean?

Peace.

227-Catballou-- re: Heartbroken's husband would probably say something along the lines of "I know it wasn't what we agreed to, but she seemed fine with it at the time; she didn't object."

Yes, that probably is what he'd say, but I can't see that it's any kind of defense. You're right that we don't know the rest of the dynamic in this relationship. So we fill in the blanks with what we know of our own relationships.

I've been in relationships (okay, one relationship) where the conversation dynamic went like this: I tell the other person that something is important to me. I'm clear. I say it again. I complete the communication loop by asking if it's understood. I get an affirmative. We talk more. I reiterate. I get no argument. I get more agreements that it's understood. I repeat. It's boring. One time I even made my target sign a slip of paper acknowledging that she would do as agreed. I have witnesses. Others hear the agreement. I write it down. I have not forgotten. This goes on many times over a period of days.

The other person does not do as agreed. I become angry or heartbroken. I feel violated. (Over an accumulation of years, I become depressed.) I communicate my distress.

The defense? "Oh, I forgot." Or "I didn't know it was important to you."

I refer back to my comment in 48. Heartbroken's husband may have understood Mrs. Heartbroken's discomfort as something that could be negotiated later as he saw fit. He may really be telling the truth if he says "she seemed fine with it at the time." I'm sure my mother was telling the truth when she said she forgot or didn't know something was important to me. The point is that it may be true, but it's not much of a defence or excuse.

What was Heartbroken supposed to do? What is the etiquette during a threesome when something is happening that you objected to beforehand, don't want to have happen in the present, and is happening anyway? What exactly was she supposed to do or say?

Mr Married - The auld Scottish meaning.

Potential alternate phrasing for the question that was considered but discarded was, "Who died and made you Mrs Tiggy-Winkle?"

This probably does not mesh exactly.

@240 vennominion,

Definition of Fey:
Chiefly Scottish : fated to die : doomed.

??????????

Peace.

Mr. Ven:
I know Mrs. Piggle-Wiggle, but who is Mrs. Tiggy-Winkie?
And what does she do/symbolize/signify? Is the the Voice of Doom and Gloom?

As to Miss Brodie's teaching method or anyway her professed teaching method (ex duco), I'll refrain from applying it to EricaP, but instead say only that the more I think about it, the more I have decided that all teaching is a combination of ex duco and in trudo, which actions, particularly done in combination, mimic sex.

Which is thoroughly in keeping with the themes of Spark's book. Not only can everything be seen in sexual terms (remember Jenny and Sandy going into fits of giggles watching the needle on the sewing machine as it goes in and out of the fabric?), but education, the transfer of knowledge--ALL kinds of knowledge--is inherently sexual, and all teacher/student relationships thus inherently sexual ones.

Oh yes, Beatrix Potter's Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle, right? The hedgehog laundress?
Isn't she always merry and cheerful?

In that case, the irony was lost, but now it's been found. (apologies to "Amazing Grace")

Although I'd have to go back and read all of ankylosaur's recent posts to see if I see what you're seeing and agree with your interpretation. And I still want to answer both EricaP and Married in MA, so I don't have the time.

Mesdames Cute/Driasis - Ah yes, mixed versus unmixed groupings. Another stymie put up by the Great Wall of Kinsey.

@243: So which is the ironic response to Ank's recent postings (which I haven't re-read)?
I obviously need more coffee, but am going to just go ahead and ask for help.

Ms Cute - Well caught re Spark, but I was deliberately avoiding being public about it. Agreed about professed.

Mr Married - You're being a shade too literal; I've seen the word often used to describe someone's mood as unusually up in some way just before a disaster befalls someone, not necessarily that person.

Married in MA: I would love a threeway conversation! Like all good conversations, there is give-and-take, ebb-and-flow, and the configurations change from moment to moment or topic to topic. But if there is good conversational chemistry amongst the three and if everyone is considerate and stays aware, checking to make sure everyone is included (at least enough) then that conversation, while not necessarily as intense as a one-to-one conversation can be, can be totally delightful, in part because of the input from three distinct points of view.

@234 "the scenario as presented is nothing short of a RAPE once removed"

In my opinion, it's more like a guy agreeing not to come in your mouth, and then doing so anyway. What is "rape once removed" anyway? Anything sexual a person does that their partner didn't agree to? If you promise not to masturbate, does masturbation become "rape once removed"? Can we just use the word "violation" instead?

@238 "What is the etiquette during a threesome when something is happening that you objected to beforehand"?

What is the etiquette during two-person sex when something happens that you objected to beforehand? It is not unheard of for people to try, during sex, to do something that was previously declared off-limits. Sometimes the other person doesn't even mind, later.

In a threesome, normally if someone gets upset they stop participating, and the other people notice and check in. If your spouse is oblivious, you can tap them on the shoulder, or you can let it go and deal with it later. It becomes a data point as you evaluate your marriage in general. I don't see why it should be the determinative data point, but for some people, I guess it could be.

Re: non-couple threesomes, siblings, threesomes, being fought over threesomes, twin fantasies, and threesomes in general:

I have never understood the threesome-with-a-set-of twins fantasy, myself, nor the threesome-with-a-pair-of-siblings. Although there seems to be ample evidence that people can be attracted to their relatives (wow: twincest porn), for me, I can think of no-one I'd less like to see in a sexual situation, let alone be in a sexual situation with than any of my near relatives. But it is a persistent fantasy, so it must tap into something I just don't get. Does part of the twin fantasy involve the twins interacting with each other, or is part of it that they would both only be fighting over/serving the third?

I've always fantasized not about two men fighting over me, but about being the center of erotic attention from two or three men. That seems to me to be very different. I don't like the connotations of animosity or competition in a negative way that "fighting over" imply, and I hate confrontations in general.

I've had very limited more-than-two person sexual experiences. My earliest was more of a tag-team kind of thing, involving two friends, which I liked. My second was the aforementioned brothers. This was a spontaneous experience, in which there was a serious sort of competition between the brothers which got played out on my body--the "winner" seemed to be the one that got the best or biggest sexual response from me. One would think that that would make me the "winner," but all the emotional connection was between the two brothers, and was also negative and vaguely hostile. I don't mean that I should have felt a "love connection"--this was a random hookup following a party--but even the most meaningless sex needs a component of connection for me to like it, and it was totally lacking between me and either of the guys. Instead, the connection, complicated, rivalrous, and competitive, was between them, so that even though they didn't touch each other, everything they did, they did in a way *for* each other's benefit. Ironically, although it could be argued that I was the center of erotic attention, I wasn't the true center of attention. As I said, it was weird, and I don't think representative of most sibling-threesomes.

Not long ago, I was in a two-straight-couple situation, but the other woman's role became more of an orchestrator than a true participant. This was fine with me, because I'm not at all attracted to women, and didn't want to really interact with one sexually, and it allowed me to finally fulfill my "center of attention" fantasy, with an audience, to stoke my exhibitionism. I have to say I loved it. And, Married in MA, there were times when only two of us were directly interacting sexually, but all of us were connected somehow, such as when I was being fucked by my boyfriend, but staring intently into the eyes of the other man, whose wife was narrating what she was seeing. In some way, the sexual act was simultaneously occurring between me and both men, or even between me and the other man by proxy, and at the same time, sharing the intensity of our gaze made it feel as though it was a witnessing and intensification of the sex between me and my boyfriend. I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it, but it felt easy and natural, and not as if anyone was being left out of the whole overall experience. But we all switched things up and made sure everyone was as included as he or she wanted to be. (And everyone climaxed by the time we were done.)

As to a FMF or a MFF threesome, most of the men I've been involved with would be interested. I have several issues/reservations. The first is as regards any FF interaction. I am almost repulsed by women sexually--just don't think I could do it, no matter how willing my spirit was, so it would have to be a FMF threesome, with no contact between me and the other woman, which is what previous bfs have expressed interest in. In other words, a "center of erotic attention" focusing on the man. This presents its own set of potential complications for me, as I can be a bit insecure about my body. I would be worried that I'd fail to measure up. But as long as I didn't get the sense that the other woman was going to be preferred to me from then on out, and that the primary emotional connection was between me and the man I was involved with, I'd want to give that experience to him.

I think the easiest thing for me to participate in as far as FMF goes, would to be someone else's third, either with couple or two other singletons. As long as it was still a "male center of female attention" I would probably really enjoy it.

@248 responding to #234: YES! Thank you.
@248, responding to #238: Exactly.

@22 - Thank you so much for saying that. As a slash fan, I do NOT want to be associated with this bitch's underhanded, immoral plans for her husband.

@95: ankylosaur,

"Disturbingly good"? I'm taking this as a compliment. Thank you. Although, I'm not sure what I did to deserve such adjectives?

•My exhibitionist streak and fondness for playing bass (or guitar) in nothing but heels or boots?

•Wanting to be the author of my life and thus not let experiences define me?

...

Anyway, I've had my share of registered and unregistered individuals express their opinion (unsolicited of course) that I don't belong here and am profoundly disliked. It happens. That is life. And, I would describe you (based of your comments) as a kind, educated, and passionate person. There is a lot of uniqueness and beauty wrapped in your humanity in my opinion. Perhaps, you're "disturbingly good", too? I imagine we both have yin and yang sides. A bit of bitter illuminates the sweet. Tyger and lamb. Dark and light.... :-)

Kind regards to you and yours. Take care.

@246 Mr. Ven,

I was not so much literal as uninformed.  To my knowledge "fey" meant ethereal, or in the case of the Mercedes Thompson series, supernatural beings.  Having not seen those characteristics in Mr. Ank's writing, I was forced to look it up.

I've lamented coming late to the game of classic literature before.  I've a lifetime of "stuff" in my brain, none of which employs being fey.

Peace.

@187: You do realize that seandr is a rather sly humorist?

@249 nocute,

I guess the twin fantasy arises from the need for more.  But I wouldn't really know having never done a 3-way.

I was considering my 3-way conversation experience, and happened upon the fantasy of 3 strangers who meet and share themselves.  However, while I have lots of one on one experience, I couldn't recall any one on one on one outside of at conferences.  Human interactions are oddly limited at times.

With regard to the 2 couple experience you had, it just reinforces the power of words to stimulate the true sex organ, the brain.  I suggested SLASH have her husband and the third interactively read her work aloud for her for that reason.  The downside of going to a non descriptive mode is running afoul of words' sometimes ability to bring intimacy to a screeching halt (what, you've never said the wrong thing at the wrong time?).  And then there's singing, a fantasy which none of my partners could fulfill.

OTOH, here's to making your partner(s) unable to form coherent words.

Peace.

@257:
I've had one or two wonderful one-on-one-on-one conversations in my day, notably one took place one night in Boston with my sister and a total stranger. We had taken a trip together, and were standing in line outside a North End restaurant waiting for a table when we struck up a conversation with the single man standing behind us in line. When a table opened up for the two sisters which had room for a third, we asked the gentleman to accompany us. During dinner, we had a pleasant, small-talky conversation mostly dominated by my sister and the man. After dinner we went out for a cannoli and cappucino and the tone of the conversation shifted and became more philosophical, and here, I was more dominant than my sister. AT the end of the night, we shared a cab and dropped him at his hotel, before continuing on to our hotel. Not so much as a kiss, a last name, or an email address was exchanged--but it was one of the more meanningful encounters of my life.

It was kind of like a couple--my sister and me--and a stranger. He brought a new dimension to our familiar dynamic, and allowed us each to see and appreciate the other viewed through the eyes of a stranger, while each got to feel that she alone held some unique charm.

It was also kind of a sisters-fantasy, even though it remained nonsexual.

It was a kind of FMF threesome, where there was little significant interaction between the two women, but wherein the man got to be the center of attention. In our case, this was because we are already so familiar to one another that we both welcomed the change brought on by conversation with someone new.

To those on the other side of the wall, thank you for confirming that mixed and unmixed threesomes are more different than I'd have guessed had I thought about it beforehand.

The one thing that seems to keep being reinforced for me here is how vastly different the opposing monosexualities actually are. (Funny, because I imagine Mr Savage's mission to be rather the opposite.) My favourite bisexual people get this, and I've finally been able to pick this up as the common thread between them.

There are other question raised, but I'll worry some other time about whether secession is the ideal answer.

Mr Ven: You keep saying how different the monosexualities are from each other; would you mind giving some perspective on how this plays out in a threesome vis-a-vis a couple and a third vs. a group of three single people?

Also, you referred to "opposing monosexualities" and spoke, as you have before, about the possibility of secession.

Why?

Why do differing monosexualities have to be in opposition? Why can't we learn from each other and find ways to appreciate each other, beyond mere tolerance of each other?

I understand the need for legitimacy, and for a place and position in which a relatively small group is in the minority (as an American jew, the feeling of being the majority when in Israel is indescribable). But I don't think gay secession from all aspects of mainstream American life/culture/politics/whatever else you have in mind is tenable. Plus it smacks of the Jim Crow south.

I'd love to be enlightened by you as to all these issues sometime. I'm really curious.

Ooops: I meant to say "is in the majority!"

M. Ven@259, if I understand your point, you're noting that in a completely gay threesome (FFF or MMM) or a threesome with enough sincere bi sexuality, all three people will be eager to play with each other's bits, and not feel intimidated/disgusted by them.

Probably not always true -- people can be turned off by a specific person for reasons beyond genitalia.

But as a generalization, I think it holds up. I'd agree that threesomes are more likely to be icky among 3 people who are predominantly or exclusively het.

@264 EricaP
Why would you get involved in a threesome where you essentially say to one person, "I like your type of bits but I don't want to touch yours"? That's gotta throw cold water on the thing from the start. Would many people feel comfortable performing in the face of such rejection? This seems materially different than 2 straight males not touching each other in an MFM. If you feel that way then either find a more compatible third or just go for one-on-one.

@264, you've never started sex with someone, only to find that they smelled wrong, or their penis was too huge, or they said something stupid that ruined the mood? To say that het threesomes are more likely to run into ickiness, is not to say that gay or bi threesomes could never be icky.

Ms Erica - Clearly not always true. With couples, I thought the dynamics might be largely the same, as so often one half of the couple enters the threesome with a GGG mindset. But I had not counted on the semi-automatic assumption of the centre of attention that seems to be emerging. It was most instructive.

Ms Cute - I was not fond of "oppositional" but had unluckily already used different in the sentence.

I'm more ambitious about secession - I want New England. The red states should be glad to get us out of their Congress. And, to make it even more interesting, I'd have two states run as gynocentric, two as phallocentric and two as mixed.

Mr. Ven:
I think I may responsible for that "center of attention" thing you're calling "semi-automatic."
Keep in mind that this is just me and my mindset.

But I do take your point that in a mixed sex threesome, it would probably be best if everyone were bi . . .

It also seems plausible that the Center of attention fantasy works whether all the participants are gay, straight, bi, or some configuration.

I understand EricaP's point that you can have the best of intentions and partway through be turned off to someone.

@266 EricaP
No, not really, although the whole enterprise has become something of a distant memory.

@271, sigh.

Does anyone remember the name of the book Dan recommends giving to religious parents when their kids come out? Looking to help a student. Thanks!

@258 nocute,

Sorry, but in your example you and your sister were already together prior to the meeting of your (magical) third.

The situation I was suggesting would require 3 strangers meeting for the first time. In my experience, only the guaranteed prior shared interests of attending a conference has allowed me this.

My most memorable 3 way conversation hook up was in a jazz bar in Copenhagen. 2 Swedish ballet dancers. Unfortunately the evening ended horribly, and I ended up feeling poisoned by the tobacco mixed into the weed we had been smoking. (One of the women had been a cult member, and the other triggered her breakdown by "outing" her and discussing it with me). I had a very interesting experience while I was there, though; at one point I was desperately looking for anyone else that had brown eyes (I've been the only white in black and asian groups before; this was the only time I felt something akin to panic about looking for someone else like me). Another strong memory: I stayed with a family that was raising money to adopt by letting out rooms, and they got their approval notice as I watched (one of the first times I was sure I would want children).

Peace.

@274 amended,

My interesting experience was walking the streets in Copenhagen (not in the bar).

The house I stayed in was after I spent my first night in a hostel, and met a German couple that took me to the Carlsberg brewery. We hit the last tour, and I found out drinking 2 bottles of Elephant on an empty stomach, in 15 minutes, isn't for the faint of heart (I managed 2 other brews as well). For some reason I lost sight of the couple in the train station...

Peace.

I have been involved in a few MMF threesomes, usually with a husband and wife. Before anything occurred, the couples and I would always talk extensively about boundaries. Since I was the "outside" party, I made sure that the husband was always attentive to his wife moreso than me. Also, if the wife did not want her husband penetrating me, that line was never crossed.

There was one situation, my first threesome, when I thought I would be having a sexual encounter with just a husband while the wife watched. This happened when I was much younger and this couple was a little older than me. I did not want to be involved in a sexual encounter with another woman at that time and expressed it. However, the couple felt I became "inspired once things were underway", and the wife became involved as well. To this day, I never forgotten how violated I felt.

I say all of that to say this...

1. to Heartbroken: although I empathize and sympathize with you, you had a right to stop the activity as it was happening. Also, if the other female knew the boundaries, she should have stopped it from happening as well.

2. to Slash: you are playing with fire with this one. Is it worth you risking the trust of your husband? What if your husband decides he wants to "snap"? Is it worth that risk? Some fantasies are better left just that...a fantasy.

@273 When POD wrote in from Ireland a month ago, Dan recommended this film for her parents:

Lead With Love: http://www.leadwithlovefilm.com/

Other Sloggers recommended:
- "For the Bible Tells Me So" (2007 American documentary)

- What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality, a (gay-positive) book by Danial A. Helminiak, Ph.D., and Roman Catholic priest

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…

@276 broken,

Did you mean FMF rather than MMF?

Peace.

@ 212 ankylosaur:

Well said. The analogy about learning to swim is good one. You explain it all well. Thanks for that.

@Married in MA: yes I did. Please excuse the oversight.

Ms Cute - Oh, agreed that it doesn't have to play out differently. There's no reason why it can't be one half of the couple being "GGG" in a bite-the-bullet way and the other half getting a selfish wish granted, but there are effects from logistical differences. I knew one couple some years ago, for instance, who had occasional threesomes mainly because J's favourite activity was X, and Q's favourite activity was Z, and bringing in a third was the easiest way for each to do what he liked best at the same time instead of taking turns.Not always possible, but you get the sense.

Miss Heartbroken, do not be heartbroken. Turn it into a reason to focus on you and not bad shit done to you by people who are supposed to have you at the forefront of their respect-as I assume you hold your husband!! And Mind fuck is the perfect word set. Thanks Dan for the direction at her selfish husband and for wondering if the "extra hole" knew the queens rules or not. I wondered as I was reading the beginning of threes, as I know they (malicious motherfuckers) do exist!! I would assume she did and is a selfish POS too :(

There is no "I" in "threesome."

SLASH,

Speaking as someone who is 100% straight (yes, it turns out we do exist): if your husband is like me, it really is not going to happen. Even if he did decide to attempt to have sex with someone he is not attracted to at all, purely because he knows you like it, he'd probably have trouble getting it up at all!

Know yourself.

Heartbroken's hubby probably should have told her that, in the heat of passion, a P might end up in a V. And if that's not OK, then the three-way is off. Been there and done that (with everyone's blessing) enough times to know that it does 'just happen'* on occasion. Particularly when we like it rowdy and spontaneous.

*Put the condom on early. I've had as many women shove Mr Winkie in bare as I've gotten carried away and done it myself. The uneasy feeling afterwards just isn't worth not getting ready during the 4play.

Slash's husband probably knows himself pretty well. So she shouldn't be setting up a situation where things might go drastically wrong. But I'm wondering why, if hubby has clearly expressed his position in being in that position, she can't just file it away as a fantasy, never to be acted upon. There could be some sort of communications block where she isn't capable of replacing her internal image of reality with real life. I think they call this a narcissistic personality disorder, but I'm not a shrink. So don't quote me. I don't know sh*t (as the song lyric goes). But that is going to pop its little head up again in the relationship (not the fun little head either).

This comment is for Heartbroken, and for someone else, too. I was the third once, and "in the heat of passion," what happened to Heartbroken happened, a very similar situation to this, and I knew ahead of time what the ground rules were, and I was absolutely culpable (and so was he, but that doesn't lessen my part in it).

And I felt awful then, and I apologized; I feel awful now, and it has been almost three years, and that awful feeling never goes away. I haven't talked to the couple in a long time and every so often something like this comes up and makes me want to write to them and apologize again and again. But what am I going to say- I'm sorry I fucked up so horribly, here are some flowers, and I'm also sorry for reminding you of that fucked up situation that you'd probably like to put behind you?

So, Heartbroken, though it probably won't help much, I wanted to tell you my story and to apologize again- to my friends that got hurt, and to you for getting hurt. I am so sorry. I have no explanation or excuse other than sometimes things happen, and they shouldn't.

I hope that the three of you are able to talk about it and heal. I hope that trust lost can be regained and hurt feelings can be mended, though I know that's not always the case. My pain at the memory is, I'm sure, nothing compared to hers, and I wish there were something I could do about it short of having a time machine to slap myself silly before I caused the problem back then. Rest assured I'll NEVER let that happen again.

This comment is for Heartbroken, and for someone else, too. I was the third once, and "in the heat of passion," what happened to Heartbroken happened, a very similar situation to this, and I knew ahead of time what the ground rules were, and I was absolutely culpable (and so was he, but that doesn't lessen my part in it).

And I felt awful then, and I apologized; I feel awful now, and it has been almost three years, and that awful feeling never goes away. I haven't talked to the couple in a long time and every so often something like this comes up and makes me want to write to them and apologize again and again. But what am I going to say- I'm sorry I fucked up so horribly, here are some flowers, and I'm also sorry for reminding you of that fucked up situation that you'd probably like to put behind you?

So, Heartbroken, though it probably won't help much, I wanted to tell you my story and to apologize again- to my friends that got hurt, and to you for getting hurt. I am so sorry. I have no explanation or excuse other than sometimes things happen, and they shouldn't.

I hope that the three of you are able to talk about it and heal. I hope that trust lost can be regained and hurt feelings can be mended, though I know that's not always the case. My pain at the memory is, I'm sure, nothing compared to hers, and I wish there were something I could do about it short of having a time machine to slap myself silly before I caused the problem back then. Rest assured I'll NEVER let that happen again.

@215 Hunt,

no problem. You're welcome to stay. I just hope you will try to avoid hurting others. Will you?

@219-220 (Mr Ven),

Re: fey (a new word which I didn't know before -- thanks!) I'm not sure what you're picking on -- I don't feel any different from usual. What do you mean?

As for a threesome not involving a couple: my very limited experience (2 instances) always did involve a couple, but my impression is that it would be similar to comparing a friend coming to dinner at your house (where s/he will meet your spouse) vs. three people meeting for dinner at a restaurant. I suspect that the presence of a couple will tend to put them in charge: they will be like Alpha Centauri A and B, closely orbiting each other, with Proxima much farther away (at visual magnitude -9, not even a disk in the sky). It would seem that the couple, in this case, has more power / is safer (they rely on each other) and should thus think more about the security/comfort of the third; while in a threesome-sans-couple each party is much more equal to the others, and the question of who the 'leader' or 'owner of the party' is is much more ambiguous.

@252 (Kim in Portland), I did indeed mean it as a compliment, and thank you for your opinion of me. I try to be as fair as I can to all sides of a question, and I try to see how people relate to their problems and to what they say about them. Dr House would say "everybody lies"; I would say "everybody narrates."

You seem to be a person with great empathy for others, and with a strong desire to help them. You make me think of Tertullian's anima naturaliter Christiana (though I think he meant it in general, as in all souls have knowledge of good, I see it so often applied to naturally virtuous people like Marcus Aurelius).

I think now and then each of us feels "undesired", here in SLOG or elsewhere in life. I've had my time, EricaP above got some 'tough love' from nocutename and mydriasis, Mr Ven had his moment a while ago... But hey, we're more than that. Each one of us, who look fragile in some sense (animula vagula blandula...), is actually a little universe, no matter how simple we might sometimes seem to be to others.

@291 Mr. ank,

I am totally clueless to whether this is how it works, BUT:

Could you put an ad in CL for "2 thirds" in order to provide an attraction to make a 3-way of strangers?

Peace.

@236 (Hunter), sorry, but it is a victimless crime. If scrolling past stuff is something you have to contribute to this page-after-page of comments (280 thus far and increasing), thereby making the "problem" you complain about worse (and engaging in what is called "performance contradiction")... then again, why are you here?

If you say you like it here, then the problem of bandwi(d)th is not serious. A 'victim' that keeps coming back must like being a 'victim.'

My point is simple. You like to post things like "diarrhea" to refer to other people's thoughtful comments, not because it's right (it isn't), but because it hurts them. That's all you do here: try to hurt the others here, those actually enjoy reading the comments.

As long as you acknowledge that that's what you're here for -- to hurt others (like a more concise version of Seattleblues) --, I have no complaints. Just don't pretend that you have other motives.

@290

You're joking right?
His explicitly stated goal is to hurt others.

@294/295

Oh word - I guess I should have made use of MY scroll button right?

@258(nocutename), this precise experience (which I've also had a few times, also often -- though not always -- involving perfect strangers) is one of the basic reasons why I don't like to set sex apart from the rest of human experience. (Your claim that teaching/learning is sexual -- in-trudo cum ex-duco -- is also another similar reason. I'll only add that research, which learning beyond what is known, is similarly sexual.)

So much in sex is exactly like what happens in other things, the difference being mostly the exact kind of pleasure/bodily sensations that one gets from it!

In our society, sex is also associated with a climax of intimacy -- it's when you "shed all your barriers" and show yourself (emotionally as well as physically) naked, or so they say. It's also a moment of great physical/emotional closeness, or so they say.

It seems to me, though, that most of it comes from the mythology about sex -- the fact that we refrain from it for so long, and so often, plus all the stories and expectations we hear about it. All this meaning is not in the experience itself, in its phenomenology, in the hormones, orgasms, or hugs, but in the meaning we ascribe to it.

Being a human surrounded by humans is in many ways the strangest experience we can have. Only being truly alone could be stranger. Sex, in comparison, is relatively simple and straightforward.

@295, in a sense I am. I don't think he'll change; even though telling a person what s/he is doing can sometimes elicit change, I don't think this is his case.

Still...

Maybe there simply is a part of me who wants to be an optimist.

I'm actually going to let the stupidity of your statement stand for itself and decline to engage with you at this point in time.

Isn't it soup yet?????

Mr Ank - You just appeared to have defaulted into Sunshine Day posting, in which every LW deserved to be happy and every experience could be turned into good. Such an unusual upswing in mood just caught my attention and made me think there was a disaster on the horizon - and anyone who thinks this evening an uncomfortably successful one for a certain person whose initials occupy adjacent locations in the alphabet can agree with me that disaster is a pretty good word for it.

Remember, I often agonize over whether a LW deserves happiness or not. Never let it be assumed that I necessarily advise a course of action in any LW's best interest! It just unnerved me a little that you were being far too nice to everybody. If I were in a strict mood, I'd call that somewhat lazy, but I didn't happen to be.

But I am pleased, knowing how likely you are to enjoy it, to have presented you with a new word.

@299, of course you realize your answer to mydriasis contradicts (in background implication) your answer to me? And all in one post?

If you're not here to hurt others, Hunter, then don't hurt them. It's that simple.

@Ven, and quite an interesting word it is (my OED tells me it is a direct descedant of Old English fæge 'doomed to die, fated', perhaps borrowed from Old Norse feigr of the same meaning, [cf. modern German feige 'coward'] but all ultimately from Proto-Germanic *faigjo-, from Proto-Indo-European *peig-, a root meaning, 'evil, evil-minded, hostile', of which the word 'foe' is a nominal derivative -- i.e., in the distant past, before English even existed, 'fey' was the adjectival form of 'foe').

Curious pronunciation -- I had guessed [fi:] (like 'fee'), but it is actually [fei] (like Fay Dunaway). If memory serves me, it's not what old English æ is supposed to have turned into. Something funny must have happened in the history of this word.

As for my fey state (I can't see it in my writing style, but then again I probably wouldn't if it were there...), you are correct in sensing doom. I am currently dealing with a personal catastrophe (the death of a loved one), and what you sensed may be a reaction to that.

'Far too nice to everybody.' An interesting tour de phrase.

Make that my epitaph.

@299 Hunter78: For someone who once claimed that I was "out of control", I suggest that you take a deep breath, and chill.

anklosaur @305: Amen! and @ 307: I want that on my gravestone, too!

@308, thanks! And, as for Chopin: well, Chopin is unavoidable. I'm not a musician, far from that; but even I have a few favorites (all his Noctures, which suit my moods, especially the Nocture in G Minor, Op. 15, no. 3, but in fact all of them).

Sorry for the old post but have just discovered Dan's cole thecolumn and thought I had something to add. I wonder if Heartbroken or her husband told the third what the boundaries where. If they didn't then, in a highly charged situation, promises can be forgotten very quickly.

@ankylosaur, sorry to hear your sad news @306; you're in my thoughts today.

@anklosaur re #306 and EricaP's @311: I'm really sorry, too, to hear about your loss. Be comforted in knowing that you are in my thoughts and prayers, as well.