| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 6/18/2008 1:10:39 PM | One for all and all for one...one only for me!
I think it cuz women are pleaser's and men don't want their buddy honing in on his moves... | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 6/18/2008 1:54:17 PM | If I was lucky enough to have a partner that offered me a FFM, I would be nothing but selfish to not at least offer her the same opportunity to explorer. Whats good for me is as good for her. In fact, she should have better if I can arrange it.
Honestly, and I know this has been done to death, sex and love are different. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 6/18/2008 2:45:42 PM | | Haha, yea, basically, a threesome with two women sounds great. 2 guys? No thanks, I'm not gay. As such, I'd never ask for one. If she was bi though, it'd be a different story. I don't think it'd be hypocritical to only do 2 women threesomes in that scenario. Ultimately though, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 6/18/2008 3:37:55 PM | Has nothing to do with homophobia to me. It just has to do with personal preference. I like women. More women = better. More men = not as good.
It's pretty self explanatory to me. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 6/18/2008 3:41:38 PM | | I'm not opposed to having a threesome with another man and a woman if I don't have to do any sexual activity with the other man. However I would rather be in a threesome with people that I'm somewhat attracted to. I'm not attracted to men. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 1:59:04 AM | A couple reasons for this,it is every mans fantasy to have 2 women,and then the other reason is men don't want to take the chance that the other guy will be better.lol the fragile male ego being what it is.
My ex and i had many threesums both mfm and fmf both were fun and worked in the moment for what they were....fun!
 | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 2:53:31 AM | | Its as simple as the rampant homophobia among us guys... and for me its jealousy. I am not ordinarily jealous but in the bedroom I am, its all about her and I enjoying each other and forgetting about the rest of world, I have tried with 2 women and got too jealous and then my girlfriend at the time convinced me to do something to the other woman I totally feel horrible for even today. I would never try it with 2 men and a woman, and I doubt I'll even be too keen on 2 women again. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 5:51:46 AM | | I can explain this perfectly. Women in general are naturally more intimate with eachother then men are with eachother. You will see two hetero women kiss eachother in the mouth(closed mouth) or hug, way before you will see 2 hetero men behave like that. I think guys think its no big deal by asking women to get involved in a threesome because of this. I've always loved the idea, and actually experienced it daily as if it were a lifestyle i was in for years. I wouldnt be that eager to do it with 2 hetero women though-only bi females | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 6:37:55 AM | It's ridiculously easy to arrange an mfm threesome, but very difficult to arrange an fmf. So if you approach it that way, the guy may never get his fantasy if the mfm comes first.
The easy way to do this is to find another couple. Then you can take turns having threesomes - and if the women are bi or bi-curious, then you can even have three focus on one of the women at a time. Everyone is happy, and jealousy is much less likely. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 6:52:33 AM | because real men don't like to experiment with other men. but you see women on women all the time. we know that heterosexual women who kiss other heterosexual women (or more) are just having a nice fun time. you see two guys making out - THEY ARE GAY.
there are some things real men don't do. touching another man sexually is one of them. real men won't engage in swordplay in a MFM threesome. FMF is much more erotic. double standard - yes! but that's the reality of it.
(p.s. real men don't line dance either!! my personal rule!!)LOL | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 7:34:36 AM | I don't know about 'men' , but my experience is this. I have never been interested in one, but on a very few occasions I have been asked to participate with a couple of women friends. Being close friends at the time made it enjoyable each time. No regrets. Still not looking, though.
Steve | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 10:56:48 AM | because guys are very immature about sex. They pretty mush force the FMF threesome. Now, women do it even if they don't want to because MOST not all but MOST women want the attention. If the guy is not into MFM threesome the only way to go is with the FMF threesome. I personally love both threesomes, it can be benifical to have an extra guy because he can take over if I should get tried.  I am not bias when it comes to sex. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 12:52:20 PM |
because real men don't like to experiment with other men. but you see women on women all the time. we know that heterosexual women who kiss other heterosexual women (or more) are just having a nice fun time. you see two guys making out - THEY ARE GAY.
It's also, that I think many men are more territorial. Some are more territorial than others too... We don't want to share our partner with other guys... Even to the extent, it might be 'I worked hard to be in a sexual relationship with this woman and I'm sure as hell not going to just give her to my buddy... let him get his own girl... ' | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 9:34:17 PM | So why can't we all just have preferences? I'm not sure that being bi or gay is relevant to the situation, since gay sex is two men, and the topic here is one woman with two men.
Anyway, I'm all for getting to enjoy two men at once, but the presence of another woman in anything that's even remotely sexual would be SUCH a turnoff. To each their own. | |
|
| |
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/9/2009 11:50:23 PM | I think things are changing. The old patriarchal system in which men's fantasies are imposed on the intellectual mainstream is slowly crumbling.
Women aren't more naturally bisexual than men. If anything, I think men are more naturally bisexual than women. Consider that men are more sexual in the sense of being sex-seeking - therefore, it's a logical step to seeking sex with anything that moves, including other men. In prison, where women aren't available, previously 100% straight men are known to form sexual relationships with other men. It's the inner bi coming out.
The only reason that female bisexuality appears more common in our society is because women use their sexuality - including their so-called bisexuality - as a marketing ploy - ie to make money and get attention which leads to financial gain. Men generally aren't marketeers, they're buyers. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/10/2009 7:12:36 AM |
The only reason that female bisexuality appears more common in our society is because women use their sexuality
Perhaps there is some of that, particularly for those in the porn industry who are catering to those men who enjoy watching two women.
Aside from prison, where coercion is probably a major factor, I don't think the vast majority of men who consider themselves straight are secretly or more naturally likely to be bi than women. In the swinger community, for example, it's rare to encounter a bi or bi-curious male, but probably more than half the women are at least bi-curious and want to explore this to a much greater degree than the men. Most people won't willingly engage in sexual acts which they truly dislike, so I think women are more accepting of bi activity than men are. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/10/2009 10:07:44 AM | | What's funny is it's more logical to have a MFM threesome. After all, it's much more likely for a woman to be able to please two straight men than it is for a man to please two straight women. It really is a fear of being thought gay that makes a lot of men stear away from this. Honestly it's pretty silly. You don't have to be engaging in sexual contact with the other man. The two of you can be focused on pleasing the woman. You can even enjoy watching the other man please the woman. None of that is gay. After all, you guys get off on porn basically watching a man please another woman. That's not gay. Removing the camera from the middle doesn't change that. The double standard is alive and well and based on irrational fears | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/10/2009 11:29:52 AM |
What's funny is it's more logical to have a MFM threesome.
Only if you restrict ``logical'' to refer to possibities for interconnecting body parts and/or ignore the fact that men will reject some of the possibilities due to male-male contact..
After all, it's much more likely for a woman to be able to please two straight men than it is for a man to please two straight women.
Having been in an FMF threesome with women who did not interact, I'd agree. That sort of thressom is not very interesting. But, I think what most men want is threesome where the women are bisexual, in which case, we are talking about a different scenario.
It really is a fear of being thought gay that makes a lot of men stear away from this.
Being ``thought'' gay has nothing to do with it. Male contact does. If you haven't noticed, unlike many women, men do not hug their friends. Men don't comb each other's hair or tuck in each other's shirts or hold hands with each other. Just because you have more options for assembling body parts in an MFM than FMF, doesn't mean the guys are going to go along with those possibilities.
Honestly it's pretty silly. You don't have to be engaging in sexual contact with the other man. The two of you can be focused on pleasing the woman.
In that case, your argument falls apart, since the only ``logical'' advantage your MFM threesome has involve men being in position to come in contact with each other. When the reality differs from what is apparently logical, the logic is only apparent because you've neglected some factors in favor of others to fit an argument. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/10/2009 12:09:15 PM |
the only ``logical'' advantage your MFM threesome has involve men being in position to come in contact with each other
Perhaps your imagination is limited, or you think you know what women would find pleasurable in this situation. Sure, your idea is one option, but many women don't like double penetration. Many do like having one in their vagina, and the other in their mouth, or the second guy sucking or playing with her nipples, etc. There are many variations. Besides, even in double penetration where you may come in contact with the other guy, it doesn't have to be an "OMG I must be gay!" kind of homophobic reaction - it's incidental to HER pleasure, so why worry about it? Just keep your mental perspective and focus - I'm sure you wouldn't think your male doctor or male nurse is gay because they have to handle your genitals, insert a catheter, or check your prostate? (If you enjoy it, you may have issues! LOL) Otherwise, it can be that impersonal w.r.t. the other guy.
As for fmf threesomes where the women do not interact, I'll again disagree. I've had tremendous fun with those, though it can be a little more visually fun if the women also interact to whatever degree. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/10/2009 12:33:13 PM |
Perhaps your imagination is limited, or you think you know what women would find pleasurable in this situation. Sure, your idea is one option, but many women don't like double penetration. Many do like having one in their vagina, and the other in their mouth, or the second guy sucking or playing with her nipples, etc.
No kidding. Once you eliminate double penetration, you have exactly the same possibilities for an FMF and MFM, so neither has any advantage over the other to any person involved.
Besides, even in double penetration where you may come in contact with the other guy, it doesn't have to be an "OMG I must be gay!" kind of homophobic reaction - it's incidental to HER pleasure, so why worry about it?
My argument wasn't a philosophical one. I was fairly clear that I included the reality of how most men think about male-male contact.
I'm sure you wouldn't think your male doctor or male nurse is gay because they have to handle your genitals, insert a catheter, or check your prostate?
If he had a hard on or was getting aroused while doing it I would certainly think that. I'd be rather uncomfortable if I knew that and I think most guys would. Those people also aren't standing there naked with a hard on when they do those things. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/10/2009 1:16:28 PM |
No kidding. Once you eliminate double penetration, you have exactly the same possibilities for an FMF and MFM, so neither has any advantage over the other to any person involved.
Except that two women who aren't interacting with each other are unlikely to be fully satisfied by one man due to the limitations of the male equipment. One woman can normally fully satisfy two healthy males. | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/10/2009 1:35:47 PM | kthyg, that may be true to some extent. However, even if penetration is the "gold standard" of pleasing a women, there are plenty of men who can rise to the occasion two, three, four, or more times in the course of a couple hours or so. And given that penetration alone often does not result in orgasms for many women, the only limits for a man pleasing more than one women become lockjaw and carpal tunnel!  I'll admit, pleasing two simultaneously can be a challenge, but not impossible! | |
|
| Threesomes...why the bias?
Posted: 4/10/2009 1:42:50 PM | If a woman is having FMF for any reason other than "she wanted to", then that is her problem to work out. There is no good reason for a man to have sex with another man in a MFM threesome, unless he wants to. There is no tit for tat.
Before anyone says the men aren't having sex with each other, take into consideration that if a man has sex with 2 women, even if one of the women gets all the attention, he claims sex with two women. If you're in the room, even if you're just watching and jerking off, you are a participant. Does it make you a straight up flaming homosexual? No. Do you still have your straight card? That would be a full on "negatory", too. You're at least a little bit bi. Some men participate in MFM for one reason only... That's the only way they are going to get that stuff. They are riding their buddy's coattails. If they could get it by themselves, they would most often choose that. I think that most guys that do this stuff are either a little gay or desperate.
How many women would like to come home to find their husband and the TV repair guy naked in the living-room masturbating to porn? They're not touching each other either... Right? (I can't believe I asked that question on this site. I can see the women lining up now to see the show.)
Except that two women who aren't interacting with each other are unlikely to be fully satisfied by one man due to the limitations of the male equipment. One woman can normally fully satisfy two healthy males.
Not to be crass, but I do have a tongue AND a prick. I can't use both on one pu**y at the same time, but with two women, I can alternate. It's not impossible, or even unlikely for a man to be able to satisfy two women at the same time... They just might have to do more than just lay there. Also, a woman being able to satisfy 2 men is a bit misleading. She may just be there for her own pleasure, and leave them to get their own using her body instead of their hands. There is no one scenario that covers all the dynamics of a threesome. | |
|
| |
Home
login 
