NationStates Jolt Archive

Group sex. Is it acceptable? If yes, why? If no, why not? Have you ever? Would you if the people/circumstances were right? Is it truly a moral issue? Is it illegal in your state/country?

Yes, i believe it is fine

Reasoning: Why not?

Well if it's two men and two women and then a guy slips and you're bending over... that'd be a reason not to.

Personally, Definitely NOT, NO, NEVER.
Why? Because I have only been with one person and I want it to stay that way, to me sex is something special shared between two people who love and are commited to eachother, sleeping around cheapens that, I am not an animal, I can control myself and WHO I share that with. for anyone else, whatever floats your boat, just make sure its consentual and you are safe.

its wrong, unless its between a man and his wives.

So long as all the participants are consenting adults, where is the harm?

I know some people believe that the 'sanctity' of the sexual act has to be enjoyed between long-term partners (and only two of them), but you can surely have long-term sanctified sex with one partner, and then have pure fun sex with your girl and/or boy friends as well...

I have, and you may all rest assured that I did not immediately thereafter go out and start sacrificing children to the Dark Lord. I personally find nothing inherently wrong with it as long as all participants are mature enough to handle it (which is a real hang up).

my thoughts would be that there can be as many as you want at a time having sex. It is of no matter to me and does not have any negative consequences

Well if it's two men and two women and then a guy slips and you're bending over... that'd be a reason not to.

ROFLMAO!!! True. And watch out for all those knees and elbows! LOL!

Consensual? Yes? Then by all means go for it.

my thoughts would be that there can be as many as you want at a time having sex. It is of no matter to me and does not have any negative consequences

Um ... for whom?

so long as everyone is down with it go for it.
live life free and happy, just dont hurt people, and dont slip it into the bum of someone not expecting it.

everyone drink a tall frosty one.

So long as all the participants are consenting adults, where is the harm?

I know some people believe that the 'sanctity' of the sexual act has to be enjoyed between long-term partners (and only two of them), but you can surely have long-term sanctified sex with one partner, and then have pure fun sex with your girl and/or boy friends as well...

"Sanctified" implies exclusivity.

"Sanctified" implies exclusivity.

I know... I kind of read it as "Set Aside", like in the religious context...

But, I have special 'sanctified' meals with my wife... and, sometimes, I grab a McDonalds on the way home from work... the one doesn't alter the other...

I know... I kind of read it as "Set Aside", like in the religious context...

But, I have special 'sanctified' meals with my wife... and, sometimes, I grab a McDonalds on the way home from work... the one doesn't alter the other...

ROFLMAO!!! But you must admit that there is just a DEGREE of difference between having a hamburger and having group sex, yes? LOL!

ROFLMAO!!! But you must admit that there is just a DEGREE of difference between having a hamburger and having group sex, yes? LOL!

What if it was two hamburgers?

Or a REALLY GOOD burger....

For me personally: no. For others, sure, whatever.

BUT on a side note, we do have minors in this forum :rolleyes:

BUT on a side note, we do have minors in this forum :rolleyes:

So? They're welcome to not read this thread.

So? They're welcome to not read this thread.


or to read it and realize that im your last days of high school and early years of college alls "best firends" means is that your g/f will hook up with that chick and you if you have the right deck of cards.

To each their own, live and let live etc.

For me personally: no. For others, sure, whatever.

BUT on a side note, we do have minors in this forum :rolleyes:

This is true, but I figured if a discussion about homosexuality is ok, this should be too. Had I known there were minors using this discussion group, I probably would not have begun this thread.

Group sex. Is it acceptable?I don't think it's inherently unacceptable.
If yes, why?'Cause there's nothing inherently immoral about it. Now it's not a good idea: People tend to get jelous (although there are exceptions), and sex tends to be "complicated". And it puts the participants at greater risk of disease, although safer sex can go a long way to mitigate that.
Have you ever?Nope.
Would you if the people/circumstances were right?I don't think I'd ever be comfortable with group sex, I suppose that's a sort of way of saying I don't think the people/circumstances would ever be right. But if the people/circumstances did seem to be right (including noone cheating on anyone), I wouldn't reject it out of hand.
Is it truly a moral issue?Well sure. It's just one with a simple answer (IMO): Group sex is moral. Now naturally, group sex in certain conditions/situations is immoral, so there are a bunch of moral issues associated with group sex, just as there are issues associated with sex in general.

Is it illegal in your state/country?I don't know, but I'd be surprised if it was illegal in Canada. The federal government has a policy of staying out of the bedrooms of the nation thanks to former Prime Minister Trudeau, but the Toronto police have a history of being uptight when it comes to sex.

This is true, but I figured if a discussion about homosexuality is ok, this should be too. Had I known there were minors using this discussion group, I probably would not have begun this thread.
Come now, just because there are minors doesn't mean you can't post a thread like this. I (minor myself) rather enjoy reading these things, if not for the humour of the posts from moral Faschisten who... are quite amusing.

What if it was two hamburgers?

Or a REALLY GOOD burger....

Hahahahaha! Nope! The analogy breaks down rather quickly. BTW ... I visited your "pulsating mass" of a nation. LOL! Very interesting! :D

Come now, just because there are minors doesn't mean you can't post a thread like this. I (minor myself) rather enjoy reading these things, if not for the humour of the posts from moral Faschisten who... are quite amusing.

Heh! I'm sure you DO! LOL! I like the posts from Grave_n_idle best, myself. :cool:

Heh! I'm sure you DO! LOL! I like the posts from Grave_n_idle best, myself. :cool:
...excessive exclamations. Not necessary. And yes, I do enjoy reading them. It's funny to see people freak out because people want to live their lives differently than the freaker-outter's beliefs. It's times like these that make me glad I'm atheist. ...I'm hungry

Anyone got any food/ bah, not like it matters i'm tired and i'm hungry i'm not getting any anytime soon i just suddenly stopped capitalising an d i wreally wi sh i had had more thna one hamburger

...excessive exclamations. Not necessary. And yes, I do enjoy reading them. It's funny to see people freak out because people want to live their lives differently than the freaker-outter's beliefs. It's times like these that make me glad I'm atheist. ...I'm hungry

Anyone got any food/ bah, not like it matters i'm tired and i'm hungry i'm not getting any anytime soon i just suddenly stopped capitalising an d i wreally wi sh i had had more thna one hamburger

LOL! Well, I'm not an atheist, but I have been known to say that "the unexamined belief is no belief at all," which scandalizes most of my neighbors here in good ole' Southern Baptist Land, as well as about 1/2 of my family. Hmm. Perhaps that's why my wife left, eh? ( Don't go there! )

Leave my exclamation points out of this discussion! They're not negotiable! :sniper:

LOL! Well, I'm not an atheist, but I have been known to say that "the unexamined belief is no belief at all,"I am an atheist and I have to say that examining my own beliefs has been interesting and a bit humbling. I do try and remember that the public faces of Christianity are hardly representative (well, at least not around these parts).

Hahahahaha! Nope! The analogy breaks down rather quickly. BTW ... I visited your "pulsating mass" of a nation. LOL! Very interesting! :D

I think my nation currently makes people into burgers... doesn't that mean that sex and burgers are practically interchangable?

:)

Heh! I'm sure you DO! LOL! I like the posts from Grave_n_idle best, myself. :cool:

Thankyou! *bows to audience*... at last, the fame and recognition I have craved all my life....

;)

...excessive exclamations. Not necessary. And yes, I do enjoy reading them. It's funny to see people freak out because people want to live their lives differently than the freaker-outter's beliefs. It's times like these that make me glad I'm atheist. ...I'm hungry

Anyone got any food/ bah, not like it matters i'm tired and i'm hungry i'm not getting any anytime soon i just suddenly stopped capitalising an d i wreally wi sh i had had more thna one hamburger

I wish I had more than one hamburger, too... I guess I just have NO morals...

All this talk of multiple-burgers has made me hungry, now.

Umm . . . I don't think I'd take part in group sex. I want my sexual experiences to be intimate, just me and my spouse . . . . umm I'd better stop here before I go off on some bizzare fantasy.

I rekon its fine. I wouldn't do it myself but why cant other people if its what they like hmm? it is possible to love more than one person u know (thats for all you purists out there ;)

Haha go nutz.

Group sex. Is it acceptable? If yes, why? If no, why not? Have you ever? Would you if the people/circumstances were right? Is it truly a moral issue? Is it illegal in your state/country?
yes, with all the same qualifying characteristics of one-on-one sex; all participants must be consenting (and therefore also must be adults), protection should be used for the safety of all involved, and it should only occur in appropriate locations (i.e. no having an orgy on the Tea Cup Ride, that's just mean to the kiddies).

Group sex sounds OK, though my boner is a loner and insists on being the center of attention, no matter how many ladies are in the room with me.

I am an atheist and I have to say that examining my own beliefs has been interesting and a bit humbling. I do try and remember that the public faces of Christianity are hardly representative (well, at least not around these parts).

Not around THESE parts either, that's a certainty! Groan!

I think my nation currently makes people into burgers... doesn't that mean that sex and burgers are practically interchangable?

:)

OMG! I certainly HOPE not! I have NO desire to get fat! ROFL!

Thankyou! *bows to audience*... at last, the fame and recognition I have craved all my life....

;)

LOL! And greatly deserved it is, too! :D

I wish I had more than one hamburger, too... I guess I just have NO morals...

All this talk of multiple-burgers has made me hungry, now.

Everyone has "morals," it's just that some are more closely held than others! ;)

Go for it.

Hey. Consenting adults. Do what you please in the privacy of whatever.

Just no sex in public. I mean have enough sense to rent a theatre and charge admission ;)

I think it's a matter of taste. I don't see anything inherently immoral about it, as long as it's consensual and blah blah blah. I personally would not do it, I'm more of a one-on-one in bed in the dark kinda guy, but I have no problem with other people having group sex. Their bodies are their own to do with what they please.

I wouldn't be interested in it, but I have no problem with those who are. I can see no reason to condemn it if it is concensual.

laws should stay out of the bedroom...

..or backseat, kitchen table, bathtub, middle of the road, wherever some kinky people like to do it

I almost had a threesome with these two girls, then one had to go to her grandmother's funeral.

Shit.

it is up to the parties' that may be involved. for me, it would be immoral. for you, if ya like it and wanna, have a great time. my view of immoral and others' may be different. if its' nopt to you, hey, have a great time. but don;t be surprised if i don;t trust you with my girlfriend of the month, lol

As long as it makes you and the other people in question happy and all is using protection, I think theres nothing wrong with it.

Everyone has "morals," it's just that some are more closely held than others! ;)

It's not my fault!!! It's those hamburgers... they're such little teasers!!!

i guess moral is up to the individual.

but it IS unwise. group sex only works out for everyone in fantasy and in porn. in reality there are just too many people for everyone to get exactly what they were hoping for.

i can come up with a dozen other reasons but y'all know what they are so ill just leave you to your fantasies.

Only with the right people. That is, only one gender may have multiple participants. Otherwise things may get ugly. Personally, I'd prefer to be the lone gender. I could handle four or five at once, given the proper circumstances.

Acceptable of course, but only with the right group of nice peoplr. Done it, tried and it was nice. But choose young beautifull people in a good fysical shape and then it's nice. Party drugs (the great white powder) are a good boost if you wan't to come a lot of times. Good persons can be found in the actors and fashion schools.They like it. :) :D

Every person should have the chance to enjoy it, gives us a more free sexual world when they do.

Group sex can be nice. As long as there aren't any Americans about.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it, except one thing-

I have had any yet!!! :mad:

I wouldnt but if consenting adults do.. then it's not my business.

I think this is something we should discuss at the next NS meet-up. Ladies, my room at 5.

Would. Indeed, have, several times.

Consensual is only the tip of the iceberg. The thing about any sex at all is that all parties to it should have an understanding of each other's expectations - emotional expectations being of prime importance, but the physical side of it should be pretty clear too if there are boundaries, things you're uneasy with and such. What is this relationship going to be tomorrow? That's a question that everybody has to answer, and if there's disagreement...sorry, I just remembered somewhere else I have to be.

The only immoral/unethical thing about it is if you aren't honest with yourself and with each other about intentions and expectations.

Is it acceptable?

To who? To me? Hell, what do I care?

If yes, why?

I don't believe that personal freedom has an inherent responsibility to be justified. I believe the burden lies on someone to prove it isn't.

Have you ever? Would you if the people/circumstances were right?

No, no.

Is it truly a moral issue?

From a personal standpoint, yes. Each person needs to base how they feel on the matter on their morals.

Is it illegal in your state/country?

Not to the best of my knowledge, no.

try it you will like it

Well I said under certain circumstances. Here's the ones I can think of:
-It's in private (sorry, no group sex on the public transportation system, or out on the street).
-Everyone involved consents.
-Any third parties who have a right to know (for example, your wife or husband), do know (and either approve, or can make themselves no longer concerned third parties).

looks like the overwhelming majority of people willing to post on this thread are for it.

Hell, I'm in.

Got to get the right people, and make sure everyone one no ones everyone elses expectations, but it can be a beautiful thing.

Why in the world would someone NOT want group sex?

I haven't figured that one out yet, but I'm working on it.

Perhaps some people out there still want the white picket fence, 2.5 children, and The same guy they met in grade school plugging away at them until they turn 92?

Acceptable for me? No - I believe sex should be an expression of love between two people. So, in my view it is immoral.

However, for other people who do not share my view of sex - if they are safe, who am I to object?

this isn't a moral issue

ROFLMAO!!! But you must admit that there is just a DEGREE of difference between having a hamburger and having group sex, yes? LOL!

That all depends on how good the hamburger is though.

this isn't a moral issue
It is for zealots and selectively religious folk.

Only 98% lean burgers allowed in my Nation

It is for zealots and selectively religious folk.

well them folks is jus plain wrong

this isn't a moral issue

Then what is it? A political issue? An economic issue? A social issure?

How about a personal, social issue.

How about a personal, social issue.

Noun: morals
Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

So if I'm understanding corrently, ideas of right and wrong have no place in personal matters or social issues.

...wow.

Ahhh, you're reading your definition incorrectly...

Translate as : motivations have no place in social issues ;)

The ideas behind the motivations aren't in question. When they are, that's when it becomes a moral issue. If you think the idea is just flat out wrong, then you've opined your morals.

Ahhh, you're reading your definition incorrectly...

Translate as : motivations have no place in social issues ;)

The ideas behind the motivations aren't in question. When they are, that's when it becomes a moral issue. If you think the idea is just flat out wrong, then you've opined your morals.

:rolleyes: Few social issues would ever be raised without motivations from ideas of right and wrong, if any at all. Unless you are using some different definition of social issues than I am.

Nope, same definition. Social Issues should never come up.

No such thing as right and wrong.

No such thing as right and wrong.

Oh? Then how do you make decisions? Toss a coin?

No such thing as right and wrong.

...negating the worth of that statement, since it can be neither right or wrong. ;) Besides, morals have nothing to do with factual right or wrong.

How can that be, if it is inherent in the definition that morals are about the ideas of right and wrong?

How can that be, if it is inherent in the definition that morals are about the ideas of right and wrong?

You'll note I said 'factual' right or wrong, in other words absolute truth. Most peoples morals are based on relative truth.

i chose the last one

Hmm. It strikes me as kind of pointless, and cheapens any kind of relationship (I agree with whoever said that earlier). I personally rate it under the heading of "perversion"… man and wife only! :fluffle:

You'll note I said 'factual' right or wrong, in other words absolute truth. Most peoples morals are based on relative truth.

Hmm. "Relative truth" seems to me to be an oxymoron. Please explain what you mean by the term.

There is no relative truth. Such a thing is, quite frankly, weak thinking. There can only, by definition, be one absolute truth.

Hmm. "Relative truth" seems to me to be an oxymoron. Please explain what you mean by the term.

Absolute truth would infer there is one right and wrong answer to every question; sort of like math. However, determining what absolute truth is can be nigh on impossible with matters of morality, if it even exists.

A good example is that two halves of a country are at war. One wants... I don't know... no taxes. The other wants taxes. We'll call those who hate taxes the Notaxers, and the other side the Gimmes.

The Notaxers think they are right, and therefore the Gimmes are wrong. They hold this as truth. The Gimmes feel they are right, and the Notaxers are wrong. They hold this as truth.

Both purport to hold truth. Both act as if they, in fact, hold beliefs based on absolute truth. In the end however they are both simply basing their ideas of truth and morality on their personal ideas of right and wrong. Even when we think we base our morals on facts, the 'facts' themselves can be questioned.

One might argue it is impossible for any human to ever know absolute truth. We can only use our perception of the world to form our own, relative truth.

I, personally, think it's wrong because it's immoral.

And even if you say that "morals are opinions" stuff, then let's take the other side. Sex before marriage is dangerous. It can transfer STDs and cause unplanned pregancies. And why do people do it? Oh, right, for a moment of pleasure. :rolleyes: It's just stupid.

There is no relative truth. Such a thing is, quite frankly, weak thinking. There can only, by definition, be one absolute truth.

Can you prove that? ;) If you cannot, then you are using relative truth my friend.

You're right, of course, Sydenia. No man can ever see absolute truth - but we have to do the best we can.

Absolute truth would infer there is one right and wrong answer to every question; sort of like math. However, determining what absolute truth is can be nigh on impossible with matters of morality, if it even exists.

A good example is that two halves of a country are at war. One wants... I don't know... no taxes. The other wants taxes. We'll call those who hate taxes the Notaxers, and the other side the Gimmes.

The Notaxers think they are right, and therefore the Gimmes are wrong. They hold this as truth. The Gimmes feel they are right, and the Notaxers are wrong. They hold this as truth.

Both purport to hold truth. Both act as if they, in fact, hold beliefs based on absolute truth. In the end however they are both simply basing their ideas of truth and morality on their personal ideas of right and wrong. Even when we think we base our morals on facts, the 'facts' themselves can be questioned.

One might argue it is impossible for any human to ever know absolute truth. We can only use our perception of the world to form our own, relative truth.

No allowances for findings using the scientific method? No extensions of perception possible?

Why in the world would someone NOT want group sex?

I can think of a reason: if you have problems with one person, doubling your participating group is a great way to not just double your humiliation, but expand it at a geometric rate.

All kidding aside, threesomes can be pretty hairy experiences, but they can also be thrilling encounters that increase the strength of a relationship. I'm not an advocate of meaningless sex, but that doesn't necessarily discount the possibility of a threesome.

The kicker as for whether you should go ahead with it is pretty much what has been mentioned before by many of the more sophisticated posters that came before: first and foremost, one should work out any emotional hangups any party might have (if certain acts or positions carry significant meaning to one party or another, it might not be a good idea to do them with the other party), followed closely by physical hangups (if one person doesn't like one kind of sex act, then don't do it). No pressure should be put on any party to violate any of the two listed principles, nor should anyone force the situation; if it doesn't seem to be going well, call it a day. Finally, protection should be used to keep all parties safe. Once you've covered those bases, and you all still want to go through with it, and you think it might be a good experience, then by all means, go ahead.

No allowances for findings using the scientific method? No extensions of perception possible?

Science, as we know it, is based on our perception. We have no reason to believe our perception is in fact showing the truth, nor that every person perceives in the same way. Basing truth on what we see (or what we think we see) and claiming it as absolute would be a very large gambit indeed.

You can't arbitrarily decide what's true. But the only real alternative to making decisions - is to pull the wool down over your eyes and bumble along aimlessly. You have, like a historian or judge, to balance the arguments and decide what is best.

Of course, not everyone does that, since if everyone thought that, there'd be no racism, the UN would work, etc....

You can't arbitrarily decide what's true. But the only real alternative to making decisions - is to pull the wool down over your eyes and bumble along aimlessly. You have, like a historian or judge, to balance the arguments and decide what is best.

Of course, not everyone does that, since if everyone thought that, there'd be no racism, the UN would work, etc....

An ant sees the world one way. An animal sees it another. A human sees it still another. Any being of perception probably believes its interpretation is true. But reality itself is just an individual interpretation.

That doesn't mean we have to wander aimlessly. It means we must never, ever make the assumption that we are factually correct. We base our ideas on what we can perceive, always understanding that we are no doubt seeing but a small speck of truth, and even then just our perception of it - and that we may sometimes have to realize our perception is not the end-all of all situations.

If we see a wall in front of us, we cannot factually know it is a wall. And we should never disregard the possibility that the wall may in fact just be our interpretation of something much more. But as we can only see a wall, we must treat the wall as such for almost every situation.

That's not aimless. But it's not truth either.

Science, as we know it, is based on our perception. We have no reason to believe our perception is in fact showing the truth, nor that every person perceives in the same way. Basing truth on what we see (or what we think we see) and claiming it as absolute would be a very large gambit indeed.

Hmm. I think a good argument could be made that String Theory ( for example ) is not perception-based.

Ok well, then morals are unjust, because you are basing you baises on faulty perceptions that may be missing large and crucial pieces of data.

You proved my point, there is no right or wrong. The ultimate sophic, epistemic argument.

No right or Wrong, no morals. No Morals, no social Issues.

Thanks

Group sex should work out fine from here.

Hmm. I think a good argument could be made that String Theory ( for example ) is not perception-based.

I'm not familiar with string theory, but if it's a human idea, than we based it on our perception of the universe.

Ok well, then morals are unjust, because you are basing you baises on faulty perceptions that may be missing large and crucial pieces of data.

You proved my point, there is no right or wrong. The ultimate sophic, epistemic argument.

No right or Wrong, no morals. No Morals, no social Issues.

Thanks

Group sex should work out fine from here.

...no. ;) Nice try, but you missed the point. Again.

A) I did not deny absolute truth exists.
B) I did not state absolute truth was needed for morals.
C) I did not call in to question the usefulness of morals.

Morals are like all truth, based on our perception. I never said that was a problem. I'm saying you have to realize your perception isn't always right.

The problem with absolute truth is that once you think you've found it, you stop looking.

I personally rate it under the heading of "perversion"… man and wife only! :fluffle:
I met my wife during group sex with my then-girlfriend and she with her then-boyfriend. Does that make me a pervert by definition, or did I manage to skirt the issue by marrying her?

Is that the equivalent of "You wanna come outside about that? Wanna say that again?"

Anyway… I didn't say that you should ever assume that you are totally correct. But you should always try and find out what's right (but constantly exercise those assumptions).

I can think of a reason: if you have problems with one person, doubling your participating group is a great way to not just double your humiliation, but expand it at a geometric rate.

All kidding aside, threesomes can be pretty hairy experiences, but they can also be thrilling encounters that increase the strength of a relationship. I'm not an advocate of meaningless sex, but that doesn't necessarily discount the possibility of a threesome.

The kicker as for whether you should go ahead with it is pretty much what has been mentioned before by many of the more sophisticated posters that came before: first and foremost, one should work out any emotional hangups any party might have (if certain acts or positions carry significant meaning to one party or another, it might not be a good idea to do them with the other party), followed closely by physical hangups (if one person doesn't like one kind of sex act, then don't do it). No pressure should be put on any party to violate any of the two listed principles, nor should anyone force the situation; if it doesn't seem to be going well, call it a day. Finally, protection should be used to keep all parties safe. Once you've covered those bases, and you all still want to go through with it, and you think it might be a good experience, then by all means, go ahead.

hahah oh yeah there ya go
lets have a big serious discussion
make up contracts perhaps. no substitutions!!
everyone will be utterly honest because everyone knows each other and themselves very well.
each person will be required to bring proof of medical cleanliness
everyone will be required to provide birthcontrol and disease prevention.
hmmm we better all bring permission slips from our therapists, wouldnt want a psycho sneaking in on this beautiful experience.
in fact everyone better strip naked before we get started so we can all agree on who looks good enough and has the optimally sized equipment.

sounds like great sex to me

what could possibly go wrong??

I, personally, think it's wrong because it's immoral.

And even if you say that "morals are opinions" stuff, then let's take the other side. Sex before marriage is dangerous. It can transfer STDs and cause unplanned pregancies. And why do people do it? Oh, right, for a moment of pleasure. :rolleyes: It's just stupid.no-one excluded marriage from the formula....I could marry 2 or 3 girls...and happily live ever after :fluffle:

no-one excluded marriage from the formula....I could marry 2 or 3 girls...and happily live ever after :fluffle:

ROFLMAO!!! You've obviously never been married! LOL!

ROFLMAO!!! You've obviously never been married! LOL!so?...does not mean I could not do it:fluffle:...and be happy-happy..if you know what i mean ;)

I have, and you may all rest assured that I did not immediately thereafter go out and start sacrificing children to the Dark Lord. I personally find nothing inherently wrong with it as long as all participants are mature enough to handle it (which is a real hang up).

Screw you! I sacrifice children to the Dark Lord all the time, and I have never once had group sex.

Screw you! I sacrifice children to the Dark Lord all the time, and I have never once had group sex.NewsFLASH: Satanism or any other stupid religion does not make you more likely to have sex....
what does?
#1 good looks.
#2 good looks.
#3 same ol same ol

NewsFLASH: Satanism or any other stupid religion does not make you more likely to have sex....
what does?
#1 good looks.
#2 good looks.
#3 same.

Way to miss the joke.

so?...does not mean I could not do it:fluffle:...and be happy-happy..if you know what i mean ;)

ROFL! I know EXACTLY what you mean, but how might your wife feel about that? ; ))

I met my wife during group sex with my then-girlfriend and she with her then-boyfriend. Does that make me a pervert by definition, or did I manage to skirt the issue by marrying her?

LOL! I don't think it matters, quite frankly. And one society's "pervert" is another society's "hero!" ; ))

hahah oh yeah there ya go
lets have a big serious discussion
make up contracts perhaps. no substitutions!!
everyone will be utterly honest because everyone knows each other and themselves very well.
each person will be required to bring proof of medical cleanliness
everyone will be required to provide birthcontrol and disease prevention.
hmmm we better all bring permission slips from our therapists, wouldnt want a psycho sneaking in on this beautiful experience.
in fact everyone better strip naked before we get started so we can all agree on who looks good enough and has the optimally sized equipment.

sounds like great sex to me

what could possibly go wrong??

Everything we do has consequences, sometimes not always anticipated.

An ant sees the world one way. An animal sees it another. A human sees it still another. Any being of perception probably believes its interpretation is true. But reality itself is just an individual interpretation.

That doesn't mean we have to wander aimlessly. It means we must never, ever make the assumption that we are factually correct. We base our ideas on what we can perceive, always understanding that we are no doubt seeing but a small speck of truth, and even then just our perception of it - and that we may sometimes have to realize our perception is not the end-all of all situations.

If we see a wall in front of us, we cannot factually know it is a wall. And we should never disregard the possibility that the wall may in fact just be our interpretation of something much more. But as we can only see a wall, we must treat the wall as such for almost every situation.

That's not aimless. But it's not truth either.

Oh dear. Someone needs to step away from the Hilary Putnam.

In one very loose sense, you are correct. If by "know", you mean "comprehend completely without the slightest amount of uncertainty", then yes, we can't really say that we "know" that the hypothetical wall you speak of actually exists. We can only know that our mind exists, and that the universe is structured in such a fashion as to allow minds of one sort or another to exist, albeit not in the fashion we are aware of.

Wait a minute, you might say, that goes beyond Cartesian solipsism! That is true, but it is a necessary inference. To say that I exist while there is no such construction of a universe that allows me to exist is just as self-contradictory as saying I don't exist. As such, we can infer the existence of a mind-independent universe-- a point, mind you, that Putnam (or Kant, if you want to go to the source of Putnam's anti-realism) never once disputed.

Ah, but here's the rub. If there is a mind-independent world, then there is one true state of affairs about it. The fact that an ant, or an animal, or a person might not see that such a state of affairs exists does not change this fact-- it only means that such ants, animals, or humans have been deceived, and are each viewing the world falsely. To say that everyone perceives the world differently is not in and of itself evidence that the objective world does not exist, or that truth about it is not available at some level.


hahah oh yeah there ya go
lets have a big serious discussion
make up contracts perhaps. no substitutions!!
everyone will be utterly honest because everyone knows each other and themselves very well.
each person will be required to bring proof of medical cleanliness
everyone will be required to provide birthcontrol and disease prevention.
hmmm we better all bring permission slips from our therapists, wouldnt want a psycho sneaking in on this beautiful experience.
in fact everyone better strip naked before we get started so we can all agree on who looks good enough and has the optimally sized equipment.

sounds like great sex to me


Uh, well, aside from the part about stripping naked beforehand, yes it does. If you aren't stable enough or healthy enough for sexual activity, then you should be either honest enough to say so, or you should avoid those situations to begin with (the latter being the more probable). It's not like there are huge numbers of women walking around just waiting to spread herpes to an unwitting couple, and if you seriously think that you'll automatically pick a stalker, then I'd have to reply that either you're much unluckier than the rest of us, or you've watched Fatal Attraction or some movie like that one too many times.

Uh, well, aside from the part about stripping naked beforehand, yes it does. If you aren't stable enough or healthy enough for sexual activity, then you should be either honest enough to say so, or you should avoid those situations to begin with (the latter being the more probable). It's not like there are huge numbers of women walking around just waiting to spread herpes to an unwitting couple, and if you seriously think that you'll automatically pick a stalker, then I'd have to reply that either you're much unluckier than the rest of us, or you've watched Fatal Attraction or some movie like that one too many times.
oh yes and its so easy to tell who is stable
no one EVER lies about herpes
everyone has great insight into their own psyches
and people who SHOULD avoid such things are always the ones who DO.


those who play with fire often end up getting burned

oh yes and its so easy to tell who is stable
no one EVER lies about herpes
everyone has great insight into their own psyches
and people who SHOULD avoid such things are always the ones who DO.


those who play with fire often end up getting burned

. . .And your point is?

All of those things can happen if you marry the first girl you have sex with, and they might not even if you sleep with every girl on campus. So unless you're advocating universal abstinence, which would be stupid, you ought to ease down.

Secondly, why of all people did you pick me to have this argument with? I've already mentioned that I don't believe in meaningless sex, haven't I?

ROFL! I know EXACTLY what you mean, but how might your wife feel about that? ; ))no, no, no, it is not "your wife"....
repeat after me: your wives...as in more than one. :D

. . .And your point is?

All of those things can happen if you marry the first girl you have sex with, and they might not even if you sleep with every girl on campus. So unless you're advocating universal abstinence, which would be stupid, you ought to ease down.

Secondly, why of all people did you pick me to have this argument with? I've already mentioned that I don't believe in meaningless sex, haven't I?

you were the one who responded

after a couple days of "ain't group sex grand" i got sick of the boys' fantasy life. the notion that sex with bunches of strangers is a really good idea is just stupid. there are entirely too many things that can go wrong.

... the notion that sex with bunches of strangers is a really good idea is just stupid. there are entirely too many things that can go wrong.What about having a Threesome :fluffle: with your wives?

What about having a Threesome :fluffle: with your wives?
only if you dont mind finding out that they prefer each other to you.

no, no, no, it is not "your wife"....
repeat after me: your wives...as in more than one. :D

Heh! You WISH! :D

Actually, handling ONE was more than enough for me! Heh!

you were the one who responded

after a couple days of "ain't group sex grand" i got sick of the boys' fantasy life. the notion that sex with bunches of strangers is a really good idea is just stupid. there are entirely too many things that can go wrong.

It takes being responsible beforehand. A threesome isn't usually a spontaneous thing. It's something that you have to go into thinking about it the whole way. Anyone who thinks a threesome is just hooking up with two random strangers is someone who hasn't and won't ever experience a threesome.

I don't like the idea much. This is mostly because I love my man, and I don't see anyone but him as being attractive. In other words, I wouldn't want to share myself, body and soul, with anyone but him. I think anything less is cheapening the idea. Sex without love is a cheap thing, and this is not according to any religious ideas I might have, but my own sense of right and wrong. I've chosen to be with him, and I would be upset if I were not enough for him, and I know that he'd be upset if he were not enough for me. I've got everything I want in him.

Parties where everyone drops their keys into a bowl and swaps partners are kind of a seedy idea. It's a polarized reaction to sexual repression. It's like the behavior of a sexually molestation victim. They go one of two ways, they either become frigid or promiscuous. I guess I see society's reaction to sex as reflecting the attitude of the individuals who make it. For me, though, personally, I don't think I'd like group sex, anonymous or otherwise. It just seems really cheap and nasty.

Group sex. Is it acceptable? If yes, why? If no, why not? Have you ever? Would you if the people/circumstances were right? Is it truly a moral issue? Is it illegal in your state/country?

I personally would never do it.. but it's not my right to tell other people what to do. If every one involved is a consenting adult, that is their business, no one elses'

only if you dont mind finding out that they prefer each other to you.Stop it...you are making me "nervous" :D

hey, love thy neighbor right??!!?? :D

hell, why not love thy whole fucking neighborhood!!!

Heh! You WISH! :D

http://images.google.ca/images?q=tbn:lGu_AUW-5QYJ:bestcovers.tgnetwk.com/audio/rolling_stones_40_licks_front.jpg

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes :fluffle:
well you just might get what you need :D
Oh baby, yeah, yeah!

It takes being responsible beforehand. A threesome isn't usually a spontaneous thing. It's something that you have to go into thinking about it the whole way. Anyone who thinks a threesome is just hooking up with two random strangers is someone who hasn't and won't ever experience a threesome.
oh ive never thought of a 3some as group sex. i think of group sex as another word for orgy.

3somes are a different kind of playing with fire. if you are in a serious relationship someone it certainly doesnt seem worth the risks to me.

at a minimum its always good to remember that sex is the leading cause of pregnancy and that birth control is never 100% certain.

and no i expect to never be part of a 3some. it holds no interest for me.

Anyone who thinks a threesome is just hooking up with two random strangers is someone who hasn't and won't ever experience a threesome

well actually by the very literal definition of the term, yes, hooking up with two strangers and having a three-way would count as a threesome - since after all a threesome is having sex in a party of three.

saying things like that makes you sound like a jackass.

lets not make it more metaphysical than it has to be ok.
masturbation (jacking off) = one person
twosome (couple) = two people
threesome = three people
foursome = four people
and so on and so forth

...
masturbation (jacking off) = one person
twosome (couple) = two people
threesome = three people
foursome = four people
and so on and so forth
It is all good....Trust me :D

oh ive never thought of a 3some as group sex. i think of group sex as another word for orgy.

3somes are a different kind of playing with fire. if you are in a serious relationship someone it certainly doesnt seem worth the risks to me.

at a minimum its always good to remember that sex is the leading cause of pregnancy and that birth control is never 100% certain.

and no i expect to never be part of a 3some. it holds no interest for me.

You never heard "two's a couple, three's a group?" :D

It is all good....Trust me :D

Yeah, suuuure it is ... right up to the point where you get a stray elbow in the eye! :D

Heh! You WISH! :D

http://images.google.ca/images?q=tbn:lGu_AUW-5QYJ:bestcovers.tgnetwk.com/audio/rolling_stones_40_licks_front.jpg

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes :fluffle:
well you just might get what you need :D
Oh baby, yeah, yeah!

*wonders why pic does not show*

http://images.google.ca/images?q=tbn:lGu_AUW-5QYJ:bestcovers.tgnetwk.com/audio/rolling_stones_40_licks_front.jpg

You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes :fluffle:
well you just might get what you need :D
Oh baby, yeah, yeah!

*wonders why pic does not show*

LOL! One can only HOPE! :D

the pic shows fine.

It is all good....Trust me :D

well, ive never had a foursome, but i wont deny the rest. :D

threesomes arent as good as they are cracked up to be though, its a lot of work to really satisfy two women. you could wear yourself out doing that shit on a regular basis - still, its pretty damned fun!

well, ive never had a foursome, but i wont deny the rest. :D

threesomes arent as good as they are cracked up to be though, its a lot of work to really satisfy two women. you could wear yourself out doing that shit on a regular basis - still, its pretty damned fun!

I refuse to comment on the grounds that ... well ... I just won't comment on that! Heh!

Group sex. Is it acceptable? If yes, why? If no, why not? Have you ever? Would you if the people/circumstances were right? Is it truly a moral issue? Is it illegal in your state/country?


You mean you don't know? :p

Been there, done that, enjoyed it, but it has still always been better with just my gf and I alone. ALWAYS!

Although I did have a smile for a couple days after I had two hotte girls to myself. That is just because I had an inflated ego for a while. Had to share the story and make people jealous and all that fun.

You mean you don't know? :p

Been there, done that, enjoyed it, but it has still always been better with just my gf and I alone. ALWAYS!

Although I did have a smile for a couple days after I had two hotte girls to myself. That is just because I had an inflated ego for a while. Had to share the story and make people jealous and all that fun.

Now where in my original post did I say what I had done, with whom, or how often? Huh? Huh? Huh?

Besides, even with multiples, a gentleman never tells. :P

well, ive never had a foursome, but i wont deny the rest. :D

threesomes arent as good as they are cracked up to be though, its a lot of work to really satisfy two women. you could wear yourself out doing that shit on a regular basis - still, its pretty damned fun!

trust me foursomes are a hell of a lot more work!

at a minimum its always good to remember that sex is the leading cause of pregnancy and that birth control is never 100% certain.


Wow, is it? I always thought that pregnancy mostly came from other things, like watching too much TV or something...

It's a terrible idea as you might forget whose name to shout.
:P

trust me foursomes are a hell of a lot more work!

They are? Hmmm. I suppose it depends on the male/female mix and who does what to whose whatever! :D

trust me foursomes are a hell of a lot more work!
id rather say that i dont trust you so that i have yet another excuse to find out for myself....

:D

im going to use that as my pick up line!!

id rather say that i dont trust you so that i have yet another excuse to find out for myself....

:D

im going to use that as my pick up line!!

Good luck! Let us know how it works out! :D