Poll: Would You Participate in Group Sex? (mature)

[debramster123]

it would really depend on it;o
if it were only girls then yes.. but i really dont wanna do other guys

 

[ReservoirAngel]

I was offered such an invitation once, but turned it down. So...no, I wouldn't. Plus that was when I was single.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but I believe that sex should be between two people who love (or at least feel very strongly about) each other. That statement seemed more sincere before my drunken one-night-stands, but I still hold it true.

Plus I'm in a relationship now, so that's another reason not to go for it.

 

[Stasisesque]

While I agree with you, I have a strong feeling you're going to be flamed and/or trolled shortly if you haven't been already. I've noticed that the more thoughtful and practical a post, the more liikely it is to be hated.

I'm probably pretty safe. I'm pretty sure most people realize that this is the same thing you're going to hear from doctors, psychologists, and social workers who have to deal with the fallout of it.

I've never heard a doctor, a psychologist or a social worker say anything of the sort. Correct protection, yes certainly, but that is not at all difficult to achieve if you are sensible and in control of your own body. There are many, many contraceptive methods available especially for women: condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, The Pill, patches, injections, implants, dental dams etc. etc. and so forth.

What did you think I said?

Granted, they would be fools to say there's such a thing as a foolproof contraceptive, not would any one worth their PhD suggest that group sex is a safe behavior. However, there's a difference between that and saying you'd better not use contraceptives - that kind of foolishness is something I'd expect out of the Catholic church [http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/aboutme/birthcontrol.html], but not from me, no from a health professional.

Personally, I don't find group sex to be all that sensible or practical.

From the disease-distribution perspective, group sex generates an exponential increase in infection risk. In one on one, you're not going to get infected by the girl you didn't sex because the girl you did sex also sexed the man that sexed the infected girl - at least, not in the same sitting. In group sex, there's not even a need for incubation, it only takes one diseased cell to infect you, you're just as likely to catch it straight from the same gender via a vector. Speaking of which, lesbian sex is actually a bit more dangerous [http://std.about.com/od/stdsspecificcommunities/a/lesbiansafesex.htm] than heterosexual due to belief contraceptives are unnecessary. In group sex, you'd best wear your contraceptives like you're wading into a small communal sewer: you demonstratively are.

From a social ramifications perspective, group sex introduces quite a number of awkward factors:

• - Exactly how serious is your relationship here? Apparently not much, seeing how apparently there's a need to double up.
  - Intimacy? Stop trying, darling, this is a public spectacle and you know it.
  - If you meet Ms. Right, would she take offense to having heard of your sorted past?
  - Whoops, somebody got pregnant... now, who's paying the child support?
  - What do you mean you won't submit to DNA testing and the state backs you up in saying I'm the legal father... nobody in either of our families have red-hair?
  - Yes, child I adore? Who's your father? About that... we're still deciding. Please stop cutting yourself.
  - Whoops, one bum contraceptive and it seems I got two people pregnant... uh, I can't afford that.
  - Hi mom and dad, long time no talk, so anyway, funny story...

From a pleasure standpoint, are more orifices better than one? I suppose you have the luxury of a comparison but, from a sheer technical standpoint, we're not a polygamous species. One on one is nice and intimate. Throwing more at it, you lose the intimacy, you're now put under social performance anxiety, and to do it all for an orgasm comes off as a little desperate.

Have I ever fantasized about being with more than 1 girl at a time? Sure, but fantasy is just that - unlike reality, my imaginary partners never have STDs and are my own personal harem. I prefer to keep my line between fantasy and reality in tact, as this tends to avoid a wide number of serious consequences. In the end, best leave group sex to porn stars, professionals who are well monetarily compensated to bear the realities of it [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/06/at-least-16-previously-unpublicized-hiv-cases-in-porn-film-performers-public-health-officials-say.html] for us so we can enjoy the fantasies without that burden.

The bullet points in this post.

I am saying the only, only thing I agree with you on (as, I believe does everyone else pro-group sex in this thread) is the contraception. I'm not sure where you got the idea I/anyone was suggesting contraception shouldn't be used. My abstaining comment? That was in reference to abstaining from group sex. Group sex is no more dangerous than "intimate one-on-one" sex provided you are well educated about the various methods of contraception (the rhythm/prayer methods do not count).

Social workers and psychologists? I have no idea where you're pulling this stuff from. Pregnancy happens, it can be prevented, it can be effectively prevented, but as you said, no method is 100% foolproof. So who's to say you won't get your loving, caring girlfriend pregnant as much as that girl you met in a bar last night? It doesn't matter when, where or how it happens if it's a mistake/accident/unplanned/life destroying event, and no social worker is going to tell you to stop having sex - they're going to tell you to be careful, be sensible, use a condom etc.

Psychologists, again - if you're so scarred by casual sex you need therapy, there are deeper problems there.

 

[geldonyetich]

What did you think I said?

• - Exactly how serious is your relationship here? Apparently not much, seeing how apparently there's a need to double up.
  - Intimacy? Stop trying, darling, this is a public spectacle and you know it.
  - If you meet Ms. Right, would she take offense to having heard of your sorted past?
  - Whoops, somebody got pregnant... now, who's paying the child support?
  - What do you mean you won't submit to DNA testing and the state backs you up in saying I'm the legal father... nobody in either of our families have red-hair?
  - Yes, child I adore? Who's your father? About that... we're still deciding. Please stop cutting yourself.
  - Whoops, one bum contraceptive and it seems I got two people pregnant... uh, I can't afford that.
  - Hi mom and dad, long time no talk, so anyway, funny story...

The bullet points in this post.

Social workers and psychologists? I have no idea where you're pulling this stuff from.

The tricky thing with that bulleted list is you have to establish that these things absolutely could not happen. As each possibility can, and there's about 6-8 billion people on the planet, you can be sure there's plenty of instances in which some social worker/psychologist somewhere had to deal with that, even if they don't show up in the daily news. (Confidentiality being a hallmark of those professions.)

Trying to prove each would be trying to find a needle in an impenetrable haystack. It's not Schrödinger's cat, common sense tells us it's there, but that doesn't mean we'll find it. What with the average Internet sex adviser being somebody without a PhD looking to fleece money by telling people what they want to hear, you'd win if we went on a mutual link link.

Psychologists, again - if you're so scarred by casual sex you need therapy, there are deeper problems there.

Are you really telling me that people who take sex very seriously need psychological help?

It's an extremely potent biological function. I'd say those that don't take it seriously are the ones more distanced from reality. Granted, advertisers treat it otherwise constantly, since it gets you to take out your money, and that can erode a person's understanding it of it.

 

[Stasisesque]

Granted on the first point, however, I would suggest it would be incredibly unprofessional to suggest anyone abstain from an activity they enjoy provided they are sensible about it.

Psychologists, again - if you're so scarred by casual sex you need therapy, there are deeper problems there.

Are you really telling me that people who take sex very seriously need psychological help?

...no. I'm suggesting if you are psychologically scarred by sex there are deeper issues in play. Consensual sex, I mean. If you're a willing participant, you have given your consent - if you later are scarred/damaged by this, then surely it is something other than the sex causing these issues. Low self esteem as an example. And yes, it is a common problem - but with the countless individuals out there happily enjoying casual, no strings sex, I think it's safe to say sex is not at fault.

 

[geldonyetich]

Consensual sex, I mean. If you're a willing participant, you have given your consent - if you later are scarred/damaged by this, then surely it is something other than the sex causing these issues. Low self esteem as an example. And yes, it is a common problem - but with the countless individuals out there happily enjoying casual, no strings sex, I think it's safe to say sex is not at fault.

I sure prefer consensual sex to the alternative, to the point where porn that portays it otherwise is a turnoff for me.

However, if you're trying to tell me that consensual sex never leads to negative psychological or physical fallout, I've got some bad news for you.

Casual, no strings sex... it's a bit of a illusion. You can believe you're completely 100% safe all you like, that you won't break any hearts with your pelvis, but these things will happen nonetheless.

 

[Stasisesque]

Consensual sex, I mean. If you're a willing participant, you have given your consent - if you later are scarred/damaged by this, then surely it is something other than the sex causing these issues. Low self esteem as an example. And yes, it is a common problem - but with the countless individuals out there happily enjoying casual, no strings sex, I think it's safe to say sex is not at fault.

I sure prefer consensual sex to the alternative, but if you're trying to tell me that consensual sex never leads to negative psychological or physical fallout, I've got some bad news for you.

Okay, I'm going to say this for the last time because my brain is actually starting to hurt.

If you are psychologically scarred by safe, consensual, protected, clean, no strings, casual sex there are most likely deeper issues that should be addressed before you start stripping for anyone else. If you are in control of, comfortable with and the owner of your own body and mind, sex should not prove a problem, no matter whom you throw down with. Not everyone needs sex with love, not everyone needs sex with intimacy, some people do - the fact that they do shows how in control of their own body and mind they are, they're simply not going to get involved in casual sex - they know what they want and need. If they know all this and still agree to casual sex, then surely there is a problem there, outside of the sex, and before it does any more damage, should be addressed accordingly.

 

[geldonyetich]

Okay, I'm going to say this for the last time because my brain is actually starting to hurt.

If you are psychologically scarred by safe, consensual, protected, clean, no strings, casual sex there are most likely deeper issues that should be addressed before you start stripping for anyone else. If you are in control of, comfortable with and the owner of your own body and mind, sex should not prove a problem, no matter whom you throw down with. Not everyone needs sex with love, not everyone needs sex with intimacy, some people do - the fact that they do shows how in control of their own body and mind they are, they're simply not going to get involved in casual sex - they know what they want and need. If they know all this and still agree to casual sex, then surely there is a problem there, outside of the sex, and before it does any more damage, should be addressed accordingly.

You seem to be off on your own tangent of feminine empowerment, free of anything I said or the burdens of harsh reality, so I'll just leave your aching head alone.

I've been suffering from a cold lately. If only I was a comfortable owner of my own body and mind, this could have been avoided.

 

[Stasisesque]

Okay, I'm going to say this for the last time because my brain is actually starting to hurt.

If you are psychologically scarred by safe, consensual, protected, clean, no strings, casual sex there are most likely deeper issues that should be addressed before you start stripping for anyone else. If you are in control of, comfortable with and the owner of your own body and mind, sex should not prove a problem, no matter whom you throw down with. Not everyone needs sex with love, not everyone needs sex with intimacy, some people do - the fact that they do shows how in control of their own body and mind they are, they're simply not going to get involved in casual sex - they know what they want and need. If they know all this and still agree to casual sex, then surely there is a problem there, outside of the sex, and before it does any more damage, should be addressed accordingly.

You seem to be off on your own tangent of feminine empowerment, free of anything I said or the burdens of harsh reality, so I'll just leave your aching head alone.

I've been suffering from a cold lately. If only I was a comfortable owner of my own body and mind, this could have been avoided.

...female empowerment? What? I can't actually see any male or female pronouns in that post.

The jibe is a nice one, completely irrelevant and nonsensical, but I'll give you props for trying. I'm going to back out now, I promise, I have some hearts to break with my pelvis.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

No. No. I don't think so.

I prefer the intimate kind of sex. The one-on-one kind. At best I would go for a threesome but not the devil's threesome.

 

[geldonyetich]

The jibe is a nice one, completely irrelevant and nonsensical, but I'll give you props for trying. I'm going to back out now, I promise, I have some hearts to break with my pelvis.

No, not so irrelevant or nonsensical, I was just bailing out because I could where this was going, and where it was going was a tangent worth of a whole other thread. That thread being: is there such a thing as, "safe, consensual, protected, clean, no strings, [and] casual sex?"

The thing is, aside from, "consensual," I really don't think so. "Safe, protected, clean" - not really. If you use all the contraceptives in the world, you're not completely safe. I really want to agree with you on being psychologically safe from fallout, provided you don't have a pre-existing emotional hangup, but I don't think that's true either.

MDs would seem to agree with me. This document [http://www.leaderu.com/offices/rusty_wright/safesex.html], includes many (I assume peer-reviewed as it was a college document) sources to make that point.

That being the case, what happens to the concept of "no strings, casual" sex? Apparently, the "strings" are there, regardless of what verbal agreement was made otherwise. The "casual" aspect dissolves your best bet at sexual safety, relative monogamy within a pool of folks whose germs you've already got and whose pre-established relationship was likely to support you in the event anything went wrong.

I realize that, as far as popular sentiment is concerned, this way of looking at it is mighty inconvenient to the ideal of free sexual expression. Ideals and reality, however, seldom agree in entirety.

 

[EeveeElectro]

Nope, seeing my boyfriend have sex with other girls doesn't turn me on at all. Quite the opposite, I'd probably grab her hair and punch her in the face.
It would end in a very bloody way.
...
If I were single, I still wouldn't. I don't like the thought of being naked in front of people. And I'm boring.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

Nah, I prefer it to be Mono et Mono. I can't imagine myself doing 2 girls or more at once.

 

[Gilhelmi]

No, I cannot see any good coming of it.

Group sex sounds like a good way to spread STDs in one go. Condoms effectiveness would drop to zero because they would only protect the wearer and not the multiple partners.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

 

[Stasisesque]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

That's a given, surely? If you're using the same condom/female condom/dental dam for every partner, well... it's a little silly.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Also female, and answered yes. I would need to know and trust at LEAST one person there, and would prefer no strangers (as in strangers to everyone involved) in the mix.

And protection, of course.

That was the case for me. Knew two participants, and protection was a must. No one wants junk-germs.

You understand protection would be useless unless you stopped to change in-between every single act. The outside of the condom (or other form of protection) would still have bodily fluids on it transferring with each successive act.

That's a given, surely? If you're using the same condom/female condom/dental dam for every partner, well... it's a little silly.

As long as y'all understand that. You are adults and can make your own choices.

Personally, I would not take the risk. Unless, maybe bigamy (or the other one (many wifes, many husbands)) was legal. But neither one is not legal so I will not concern myself with it.