Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rev. Joshua · 07-24-2002, 03:53 PM

The full quote is:

"They had a threesome in Vegas, so she should have known the relationship was not exclusive."

This is from this month's Vanity Fair article on Stephen Bing and Elizabeth Hurley.

So the ethics question is, is having a threesome that includes your significant other the same as having sex with someone when your partner is not there.

[Note to all present, I am not considering engaging in either activity, and will not answer questions about what I may or may not have done years ago as an undergraduate. The quote just struck me as odd since I didn't think the two were analogous.]

Joshua

Liquidrage · 07-24-2002, 04:02 PM

There is no objective answer to this.

The only answer I can think of is any couple that gets "this" far should have talked about being exclusive or not.

Really, if they lacked the communication to talk about this but had the sexuality to engage in a threesome then I would think say it's open game but at the same time whether their relationship worked or not was of little importance to either of them.

Veil of Fire · 07-24-2002, 04:51 PM

Have to agree with LR here. If they're not comfortable enough to talk about what they expect out of the relationship, they deserve what they get when communication breaks down totally over these new sex acts.

Are these THREE exclusive? Or are two of the three exclusive with the third being a rotating temp? Or is it an open relationship entirely, where the other person doesn't have to be present?

It's all about how a couple mutually defines the relationship, and if they don't do it, what comes out is two (or three) people with two (or three) different ideas about what the relationship actually is.

I know, I've been through this first hand. I thought it was polyamoury, GF1 thought I was supposed to be practicing exclusivity with her (so she had to give the go-ahead to anything me and 2 did), and GF2 thought it was a completely open relationship.

All because we sort of just fell into it together and never actually talked about what we were expecting. The fallout from that continues to have a affect right up to this very day.

Moral of Story:

The 100% absolute most important thing in a relationship, even above such piddly details as gender and religion, is COMMUNICATION.

The Lone Ranger · 07-24-2002, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:

So the ethics question is, is having a threesome that includes your significant other the same as having sex with someone when your partner is not there.

As a knee-jerk response, I'd have to say no.

I would imagine that if you're having sex with someone else in your partner's absence, you're probably doing so without your partner's knowledge/consent. If you and your partner are involved in a threesome, presumably your partner knows and approves.

Cheers,

Michael

MadMordigan · 07-24-2002, 07:39 PM

I'd agree, a threesome is a qualitatively different sexual relationship than an 'open' one.

I still can't imagine having sex with someone more than once without dicussing the expectations of exclusivity. The entire situation seems odd.

MOJO-JOJO · 07-25-2002, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
<strong>The full quote is:

"They had a threesome in Vegas, so she should have known the relationship was not exclusive."

This is from this month's Vanity Fair article on Stephen Bing and Elizabeth Hurley.

Joshua</strong>

The third partner wasn't one of those "Bimbots" was it, because then it would only count as a sex toy.... (sorry, watched Austin Powers I last night

)

brighid · 07-25-2002, 07:23 AM

This Bing guy is such as ass! Wasn�t he getting pissy because he thought she had (or did have) a fling with Matthew Perry? Anway � if the other partner did not consent to the activity outside of a mutual agreed upon sexual encounter then he was wrong! Oh, we had a threesome so she knew I was going to be f*ing other chicks is just sooooooooo lame! She knew he was f*ing that chick because she was there f*ing her too! His statements scream loud and clear,� I didn�t tell her about this other chick but she should have expected it and therefore I am off the hook.� Take some personal responsibility Mr. Bing, obviously she didn�t CONSENT to this other chick you were banging on the side.

B

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Viti · 07-25-2002, 08:33 PM

Is this really so difficult for some people??

Both partners consent (as in a threesome)= okay

One partner lies = not okay

It's about trust and communication as Veil of Fire said. It is possible to be exclusive and still have a threesome....it does not automatically declare a free for all.

mibby529 · 07-26-2002, 05:41 PM

No, a threesome isn't cheating. I've always thought it's only cheating if your significant other doesn't know. The terms of a relationship should be discussed before you start even having sex, much less having threesomes.

AtlanticCitySlave · 07-31-2002, 02:50 PM

I can't even find a girl to have a threesome, let alone discuss the implications of it afterwards.

07-24-2002, 03:53 PM	#1
Rev. Joshua Junior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Atlanta Posts: 63	Well, they had a threesome in Vegas The full quote is: "They had a threesome in Vegas, so she should have known the relationship was not exclusive." This is from this month's Vanity Fair article on Stephen Bing and Elizabeth Hurley. So the ethics question is, is having a threesome that includes your significant other the same as having sex with someone when your partner is not there. [Note to all present, I am not considering engaging in either activity, and will not answer questions about what I may or may not have done years ago as an undergraduate. The quote just struck me as odd since I didn't think the two were analogous.] Joshua

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2002, 04:02 PM	#2
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	There is no objective answer to this. The only answer I can think of is any couple that gets "this" far should have talked about being exclusive or not. Really, if they lacked the communication to talk about this but had the sexuality to engage in a threesome then I would think say it's open game but at the same time whether their relationship worked or not was of little importance to either of them.

07-24-2002, 04:51 PM	#3
Veil of Fire Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 451	Have to agree with LR here. If they're not comfortable enough to talk about what they expect out of the relationship, they deserve what they get when communication breaks down totally over these new sex acts. Are these THREE exclusive? Or are two of the three exclusive with the third being a rotating temp? Or is it an open relationship entirely, where the other person doesn't have to be present? It's all about how a couple mutually defines the relationship, and if they don't do it, what comes out is two (or three) people with two (or three) different ideas about what the relationship actually is. I know, I've been through this first hand. I thought it was polyamoury, GF1 thought I was supposed to be practicing exclusivity with her (so she had to give the go-ahead to anything me and 2 did), and GF2 thought it was a completely open relationship. All because we sort of just fell into it together and never actually talked about what we were expecting. The fallout from that continues to have a affect right up to this very day. Moral of Story: The 100% absolute most important thing in a relationship, even above such piddly details as gender and religion, is COMMUNICATION.

07-24-2002, 07:39 PM	#5
MadMordigan Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 2,704	I'd agree, a threesome is a qualitatively different sexual relationship than an 'open' one. I still can't imagine having sex with someone more than once without dicussing the expectations of exclusivity. The entire situation seems odd.

07-25-2002, 07:23 AM	#7
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	This Bing guy is such as ass! Wasn�t he getting pissy because he thought she had (or did have) a fling with Matthew Perry? Anway � if the other partner did not consent to the activity outside of a mutual agreed upon sexual encounter then he was wrong! Oh, we had a threesome so she knew I was going to be fing other chicks is just sooooooooo lame! She knew he was fing that chick because she was there f*ing her too! His statements scream loud and clear,� I didn�t tell her about this other chick but she should have expected it and therefore I am off the hook.� Take some personal responsibility Mr. Bing, obviously she didn�t CONSENT to this other chick you were banging on the side. B [ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

07-25-2002, 08:33 PM	#8
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Is this really so difficult for some people?? Both partners consent (as in a threesome)= okay One partner lies = not okay It's about trust and communication as Veil of Fire said. It is possible to be exclusive and still have a threesome....it does not automatically declare a free for all.

07-26-2002, 05:41 PM	#9
mibby529 Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Cali Posts: 170	No, a threesome isn't cheating. I've always thought it's only cheating if your significant other doesn't know. The terms of a relationship should be discussed before you start even having sex, much less having threesomes.

07-31-2002, 02:50 PM	#10
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	I can't even find a girl to have a threesome, let alone discuss the implications of it afterwards.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.