RSS 2.0
# Thursday, January 05, 2006
...or do they? It's an unofficial assumption that couples who partake in three-some-ing are going to find themselves solo flyers, most of the time. Or, the subsequent relationship will be sicko; just like many abused don't leave their abusers, it doesn't make the relationship happy or healthy just because it has been sustained. Soooo, there's a $100 bet on this one friends, family, guests and everyone else who ever made it to this blog. If you bring a third someone into the bedroom, are ya' gonna be able to go on from there and be happy happy happy? Are ya' gonna be jealous, suspicious, fearful the new family addition will wreck your life more than a puppy wrecks the carpet? Are ya' gonna have to forever escalate the sexual accoutrements (read leather and no lace) to be satisfied in the beddie bye room? Or do ya' just go wow that was great we'll make it an annual event and go about your happy ways... Michela's got a c note riding on the it-will-ruin-a-happy-relationship-in-some-way-shape-or-form opinion. David's got the same c note riding on the it-won't-harm-if-all-agreed-to-begin-with opinion. Reliable, researched information on this topic is difficult to locate; attempts to google for hard facts (so to speak) simply return a slew websites that either promote the swinging lifestyle or assure you that Christianity has the answers to your sinful ways. Michela's supposition is based on intuition and the experienced mind of Dr. Drew. We need popular opinion.
Thursday, January 05, 2006 11:00:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)  #    Comments [20] -
Word on the street
Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:42:41 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
plenty to do about nothing, it seems, david takes the early, albeit tenuous, lead... ...and, in the process, clarifying his original assertions that *both* parties are gung ho for this idea to start.


One Opinion


don't you just love the word assertions in this context? :^)

david
Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:44:35 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
woops!

and to think, i do this for a living...

One Opinion
david
Thursday, January 05, 2006 2:46:22 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
This article assumes the context is a married relationship, but commitment is commitment, and if you're not committed, what difference does it make?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9902322/
scott
Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:16:35 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Threesomes can get scary, but if your soiree includes two circus clowns, a starving child from Zimbabwee, and elmers glue, how can you go wrong?

I guess that makes it a fivesome.
Thursday, January 05, 2006 7:02:16 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Let the games begin!!!!!!
DingDong
Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:07:54 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
I don't get it...John Updike's "M of receptivity" and the mere notion of a discussion of the possibility of a threesome...the wolves come out of their dens en masse. Maybe I should just turn this into a sex discussion forum.

On that note, I'm going to bed.
Michela
Friday, January 06, 2006 8:50:18 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Sex sells... what I can say.

I just love to talk about it :)
Friday, January 06, 2006 5:15:51 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Talk about it, look at it, think about it, think about it somemore, and doing it. it all sells. I'd buy any of the above.
Fruity
Saturday, January 07, 2006 1:48:28 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
although, i still believe that when all the proper communication and motivation is in place, a threesome can be a easily workable extra-curricular activity for a couple, i will concede that the bulk of the self-proclaimed expert community on sex and relationships feels it to be an iffy proposition at best.


even Dr. ruth says "it's not worth the risk"


of course the terms of payment can be negotiated, but at least I know how to get my hands on a brand new “C” note…

david
Monday, January 09, 2006 12:42:03 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
It is considered a threesome if the dog watches while you are doing it?
Bill
Monday, January 09, 2006 2:20:14 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
holy kishmoly Bill, haven't seen you in a while and you surface with that one?! Yours is a whole other discussion altogether.
Michela
Monday, January 09, 2006 4:53:41 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Bill: The dog only counts if he licks your ass.
Marla
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 12:38:20 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
This conversation degraded faster than a cow patty in a field of flies.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:20:40 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Proposing a bet like this is ludicrous. It's different for every couple.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:58:27 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
What is ludicrous is for a complete stranger to label a bet between two friends for whom $100 is nary a rounding error in their checkings accounts, ludicrous. That's A (if you read this site I love the A's and B's of a discussion). And B, we're talking probabilities. You could die today, tomorrow, or the next day driving to work. But you still drive to work because the probability is small. If you like your relationship, and the probability is high you will lose it if you bring a third party into the mix, then, hmmm, drive to work and skip the threesome. It's a safer bet. And that's what the bet was about. Get over yourself chiquita!
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:22:19 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
"You could die walking your doggie!" I love that quote ("Heat", Al Pacino).
Marla
Saturday, January 28, 2006 11:12:43 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Hey Michela! lay off Amber! i'd say she is inferring to be on my side!

i'll take that rounding error now... ;^)

david
Sunday, January 29, 2006 11:22:48 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Yeah, but if you look at her site dear David, she's a left wing lib. I suppose I'd side with a left wingnut myself for $100 (or for, oh dear...you know)...
Monday, January 30, 2006 2:09:02 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
By the way Marla, you are a movie quoter! So's David!
Friday, February 03, 2006 4:44:18 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
k, i actually posted on my dear Amber's blog, and she deleted my comment within half an hour.
glad to see the biggest abusers, er users of our first admentment rights have such tolerence of others who also want a taste of freedom. biatch!
Comments are closed.
Archive
<February 2012>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2930311234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829123
45678910
Blogroll
[Feed] iGanja
About the author/Disclaimer

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in any way.

© Copyright 2012
MediaWatchBlog.com
Sign In
All Content © 2012, MediaWatchBlog.com