fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3054 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3054 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08. [SPOILERS for AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON]

__________________________________________________

09. [SPOILERS for Ib (game)]

__________________________________________________

10. [SPOILERS for Forever]
[WARNING for blood/gore/etc]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #436.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

So I recently discovered that, apparently, the normal thing when people have threesomes is for it to be about two of the participants servicing the third participant. So, for example, an MFM threesome is the two men servicing the woman, and the men aren't supposed to have any sexual contact between themselves. And if the men DO have sexual contact between themselves, then it's a betrayal of the woman's trust, or something of that nature. Same for FMF: if the two women have sexual contact, it's a betrayal of the man's trust.

This is bizarre to me. I always thought a threesome was about, you know, three people having sex together, not two people having sex with one person. I mean, I can GET that sometimes it's two people having sex with one person, like when everyone involved is straight so two of the participants don't really have any desire to do anything with each other, but I don't understand this idea that two of the people involved just aren't supposed to touch each other at all. Ever.

Am I crazy? Did anyone else think what I thought?

Err, every threesome depends entirely on the people involved. I've never heard of any rule or expectation about what goes on in them.

ayrt

I hadn't either until today, that's why it's making my head spin.

That sounds like people who shouldn't be in threesomes.

In the ones I've been in, there was somebody in focus usually, but who that was was something that turns were taken on.

No, you're not crazy and that's my view of threesomes. Even if everyone's straight, there's no reason to be touch-phobic or to say it has anything to do with a betrayal of trust. That said, anyone is welcome to setting up their own rules - I just won't take part in that kind of threesome myself.

betrayal of trust? lol what

I mean, sure, in some threesomes the dudes or whatever don't like to have contact with each other (that's why MFM threesomes are referred to as "the devil's threesome" by some people) but it's not a rule by any means. different people have threesomes in different ways

lol Whoever gave you this idea clearly hasn't had many threesomes.

I thought that sort of thing was mostly a joke played for TV? You know, the "awkward threesome, guys don't touch or make eye contact, embarrassed it's ever brought up" thing.

I've never understood it to reflect reality.

It depends on the participants though?

A female friend of mine once wanted to try a threesome with her then boyfriend and another guy. Both guys were up for the idea, but couldn't actually get it up in each others' presence so the whole thing, quite literally, flopped.

It's not about "aren't supposed to touch each other at all. Ever.", it's that some people are interested in the concept but not sexually aroused on interested in the other party. And if the deal going into the arrangement was that one person was going to be serviced, while I think calling it a betrayal of trust is pretty extreme, I can understand why someone would feel pissed off that the two people supposed to be lavishing attention on them were lavishing it on each other instead.

I don't know who you've heard this from, or how wide a sample pool of people who've engaged in threesomes you've had to ask, but seriously, what people expect/want out of it is completely dependent on the people involved.

wait, I thought the person of the "odd gender out" would WANT to see the other two hook up

(I don't really know anything about threesomes though so eh)

Just personally, it would make me feel weird

Not because I would feel left out; because I would feel I was intruding on something

this might just be that I'm not really mentally equipped for a threesome though

Fair enough.

They definitely don't interest me either so it's all speculation anyway. :P

Well, if that was their kink they would (e.g. most porn MFF threesomes play on the fantasy that the guy enjoys watching the girls hooking up, but ultimately they're there for his pleasure not for each others), but that's only one of the many, many reasons people might want to engage in a threesome.

People can engage in a threesome without any bisexual feelings whatsoever, in which case the two of the same gender wouldn't be hooking up at all. In that situation, one party will generally end up being the focus of attention from the other two (which is where, potentially, the feelings of trust come into play if those two end up more interested in each other than in the person who expected to be the recipient of their attention instead).

Whereas a threesome (or triad relationship) with all three people equally involved with each other is sometimes called a delta - because it looks like a triangle (each point/person is connected to the others).

The type you're talking about is more common than you'd think. Sometimes people are just voyeuristic and not bisexual.

It's not just you. I thought the same, or at least, I don't get why people would agree to a threesome if all the participants weren't at least a little into each other. Like, I'm not sure I'd ever want to be involved in a threesome, but if I did go for it, I wouldn't want the whole thing to feel like a chore.

Sometimes the kink is that one participant is the focus of two partners, or that the central participant is so desirable/horny that they need two partners to satisfy them. It's not the default that everyone's into each other. Personally I'd call that scenario an orgy or group sex rather than a threesome, even if there were still only three people involved (like someone upthread mentioned, threesome to me suggests the 'pivot' description -- two people servicing a third -- even when all participants are the same orientation).

It's very much a YMMV thing depending on those involved.

[ SECRET POST #3054 ]

Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes

That type is called a vee or a pivot

Re: Threesomes

Re: Threesomes