If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Dear Abby: My two daughters are sharing one husband when it comes to sex. My husband says any man who would refuse this "set-up" would be nuts, but I think it's horrendous. Should I continue to protest or let it go?   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 332
    More: Interesting, Abigail Van Buren, Too Far, Pauline Phillips, Jeanne Phillips  
•       •       •

29692 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2013 at 12:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



332 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-13 05:25:15 PM

Nutsac_Jim: Clemkadidlefark: Once upon a time an opportunity arose in my music industry profession to indulge in that fantasy, two on one.  The experience was ... awkward. Everyone willing, but not experienced where to put all the extra arms. And in contrast to pron.

If it was two girls you have them handle each other while you take car of them in a serial fashion.

If it was a guy and a girl, you are to put your hand on the trigger and shoot yourself if you did anything other than the high five to make an A.


LOL over here

No further comment except it was two young ladies of the "I'm so effing drunk" and "Don't dare me, you know I'll do it" persuasion".
 
2013-02-13 05:26:36 PM

LeroyBourne: I can see this happening, I dated a chick who had a younger sister. When I'd go over to their place to party at the end of the night the younger sister would try to get us to just all snuggle up in her big bed. The g/f just had a single bed, and I don't mind spooning. Whenever the younger sister tried this I just kept my mouth shut to see how my gf felt about this and to see how it would play out. It never went down.


You're supposed to see a doc if it lasts more than four hours.
 
2013-02-13 05:31:58 PM

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: cmraman: Galloping Galoshes: cmraman: //Yeah, I'm a slut. What about it?

Don't need your stories.  Put your wife on.

She's not Fark fantasy material. She's 50, and she's not a supermodel. Oh, and unlike the girls most Farkers date, she's real...

/But since you asked nicely...

[www.geekconsulting.net image 850x566]
[i.imgur.com image 580x822]


Oh that's mean.  I laughed.
 
2013-02-13 05:33:13 PM
Lucidz:

What a load of manure and an excuse for bad behavior   As civilization expands, the needs and rules of the old ways diminish.

OK, but isn't monogamy a pretty old rule then?


Besides which, with overpopulation, increased diversity among races, etc, there is no need for a biological multi-partner sexual drive.

There is no need for a LOT of the things that drive our behavior today, what's your point?  You still get to enjoy eating a giant steak even though there's no need for that.  Why?  Because it doesn't hurt anyone else if you enjoy a giant steak.

My assumption is that every time you have a "base instinct" to stone a man to death for being a douchenozzle does not cause you to do so, as society, ya know, frowns on it...

So the only reason not to do something is if society frowns on it?  That's not a very strong moral code.  Some societies would celebrate stoning a man to death for any number of reasons.  In fact, I would argue that the only reason society has that much power in our decision making is... wait for it... because biologically we are pack animals!

So you have to different biological urges here:

Urge to have sex with lots of different people
Urge to remain a member of your social group

Now I ask, throughout history which biological urge has caused more harm to people?  Probably _not_ the urge to fark everything in site.


So take your stupid weak ass argument and go justify it somewhere else.  You want to be a slut, do so.  Don't pretend something deep in your genetic code is driving you to spread your man-seed to the interior of inexpensive truck stop condoms.

Don't pretend something deep in your genetic code isn't driving you to fit into the crowd.
 
2013-02-13 05:48:50 PM

Igor Jakovsky: A green vagina? Eeewww!

I know, right? Who'd ever want any of that?:

Regardless, its still pink in the middle


So, why not fark a watermelon and skip all the drama?
 
2013-02-13 05:51:51 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Igor Jakovsky: A green vagina? Eeewww!

I know, right? Who'd ever want any of that?:

Regardless, its still pink in the middle

So, why not fark a watermelon and skip all the drama?


Too cold.
 
2013-02-13 05:54:59 PM

elev8meL8r: BarkingUnicorn: Igor Jakovsky: A green vagina? Eeewww!

I know, right? Who'd ever want any of that?:

Regardless, its still pink in the middle

So, why not fark a watermelon and skip all the drama?

Too cold.


Not if it's still on the vine, out in the sun.
 
2013-02-13 05:57:23 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: relcec: Gaseous Anomaly: StaleCoffee: "Biology" backs monogamy in a tribal setting a lot more rationally than it does promiscuity.

How so? If you're living as a group, as primitive humans did, what advantage does paternity certainty confer?

you mean besides stable human relationships?
we aren't jealous creatures because society dictates it.
pair bonding has been for millions of years the most efficient way to care for babies, and pair bonding dictates jealousy as humans that didn't jealousy guard the relationship were less likely to pass on their genes. less jealous women, had babies that were more likely to die. for men, they were more likely to become cuckold and care for other men's babies produced by their women.
if you are not jealous, you are a bit of a mutant.
not that their anything wrong with that.

Are you assuming individual living? The point is that in a group-living situation, being cuckolded doesn't matter. People didn't hoard their meat and veggies to themselves when they lived in small tribes; social pressure is a powerful force in groups that small, and it would tend to make them share or face exile. There's also some evidence (from modern primitives and related animals) that "free love" was a good way to cement these social bonds. (Some modern subcultures do that, e.g. lots of WWII-era fighter pilots and their wives were swingers).

With agriculture and civilization came individual living, which brought things more in line with the model you're talking about. But that's a blip in human history; we haven't been experiencing those selection pressures for that many generations so it's unlikely to have evolutionarily shaped us.

/I get this all from "Sex At Dawn" if you're interested


being susceptible to cuckolding does matter, it means your genes are much less likely to survive, than people who jealously guard their mates. that's why it isn't a common trait.

well scientists disagree but some theories postulate pairbonding and monogamy developed a very very long time ago when we  still hunted and gathered, not 16,000 years ago when civilization first developed. these posit that development of monogamy is interrelated with the evolutionary pressure of males needing to find a way to ensure their genes survive and humans a way to efficiently care for babies with huge brains that need a dozen years of parental care along with the the sexual division of labor that developed to care for these helpless human beings for so damn long. our lazy incompetent children didn't evolve over night when the first crops were planted in the Indus valley or Mesopotamia, but rather a very long time. we aren't chimps, and haven't been for a while.

read chapter 3 of this:
The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Family Psychologyhttp://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sj2Tk2k49ZcC&oi= fnd&pg=PA33 &dq=pair+bonding+paleolithic&ots=6hl9SrE7Mj&sig=efcHA5ngi98tYyoolW3zt8 20Kd8#v=onepage&q=pair%20bonding%20paleolithic&f=false
 
2013-02-13 06:24:11 PM

endmile: The Italian Farker: Why is it BS? My wife's sister moved in with us when their parents died. She was 17 at the time but on her 18th birthday my wife wanted me to have sex with her so she could enjoy it without getting pregnant.

Paul Bernardo?


That was my first thought.
 
2013-02-13 06:26:03 PM

dericwater: Are these the sisters?

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x581]


I have so many questions about what it would be like to do these two... er one...er two... er... what ever.
 
2013-02-13 06:52:02 PM
Mom: trolled.
 
2013-02-13 06:54:01 PM

bim1154: dericwater: Are these the sisters?

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x581]

I have so many questions about what it would be like to do these two... er one...er two... er... what ever.


Oh yeah. They're pretty hawt. Their heads are just at the right places for some serious action.
 
2013-02-13 07:16:45 PM

btraz70: macadamnut: ChaoticLimbs: Sex is not evil, it's ambivalent to morality, in the way that flavor is not related to obesity.

You're wrong. Fat girls taste way better.


dig in...
[ts2.mm.bing.net image 265x300]


I think he meant teevee fat, not fat fat.

/Teevee fat: Christina Hendricks.
//Fat fat: Melissa McCarthy.
 
2013-02-13 07:19:40 PM

The Italian Farker: Why is it BS? My wife's sister moved in with us when their parents died. She was 17 at the time but on her 18th birthday my wife wanted me to have sex with her so she could enjoy it without getting pregnant. Went on for about 2 years until she met someone responsible. Both couples are still together after 20+ years


forgot to add "CSB"
 
2013-02-13 07:27:11 PM

dericwater: bim1154: dericwater: Are these the sisters?

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x581]

I have so many questions about what it would be like to do these two... er one...er two... er... what ever.

Oh yeah. They're pretty hawt. Their heads are just at the right places for some serious action.


I should get me a couple of those blow up dolls, take the head off of one and put on the other, get drunk as shiat and test this theory.
 
2013-02-13 07:32:12 PM

peterthx: Crapinoleum: spiderpaz: m00: El Pachuco: Yeah, no.  While there are a near-infinite number of women in the world and in theory anything's possible, I've so far only seen women be both extremely protective of, and extremely competitive with, their female siblings.  This is about as likely as having a three-way with twin sisters, vs a three-way with two unrelated lady types.

Also, this (NSFW),

Actually my college room-mate was dating this girl, and cheating on her with her identical twin. I was like... "what's the point" but he swore there was a difference.

ROFL!!  omg, that's too damn funny.  The grass is always greener never applied to vagina so well.

A green vagina?  Eeewww!



"Eww?" I'd hit it!


i.imgur.com

ORLY?
 
2013-02-13 07:35:06 PM
Dear Abby,

Are you aware you are dead?  Also, someone has hijacked your column and is answering fake messages about open marriages and sisters having sex with the same dude.  Your advice was lame.  Thought you should know.

- Bugcrusher
 
2013-02-13 07:35:33 PM

Igor Jakovsky: peterthx: Crapinoleum: spiderpaz: m00: El Pachuco: Yeah, no.  While there are a near-infinite number of women in the world and in theory anything's possible, I've so far only seen women be both extremely protective of, and extremely competitive with, their female siblings.  This is about as likely as having a three-way with twin sisters, vs a three-way with two unrelated lady types.

Also, this (NSFW),

Actually my college room-mate was dating this girl, and cheating on her with her identical twin. I was like... "what's the point" but he swore there was a difference.

ROFL!!  omg, that's too damn funny.  The grass is always greener never applied to vagina so well.

A green vagina?  Eeewww!

"Eww?" I'd hit it!

[i.imgur.com image 300x437]

ORLY?


That looks like Chyna... I saw her get it up the poop shoot in some video... wasn't very erotic at all.
 
2013-02-13 07:39:36 PM

Secret Agent X23: PreMortem: I find it interesting that most think that anything different from a monogamous relationship must be a fabrication. It's almost as if they are shut-ins who never meet people with different perspectives on life and sexuality.

I for one don't assume it because it's different from a monogamous relationship.

I assume it because we're told that the wife thinks that letting the husband do her sister is somehow going to reduce the chances that he'll "cheat." If this scenario is true and an idea like that is part of it, it would most likely be the husband's idea. It's exactly the sort of argument a guy would get the wife to agree to if he wants to sleep with her sister without sneaking around and which she would agree to if she has self-esteem issues.

If it's actually an open marriage of some sort, that doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that there are circumstances that would be considered cheating, but the whole basis for this goes off in another direction.


Actually, I can see it being the wife's idea.  She's too busy to take care of his needs in the bedroom so she provided an acceptable alternative.

Crapinoleum: A green vagina? Eeewww!


What's that, something a pedophile wants?

Or are we talking an Orion slave girl?
 
2013-02-13 08:12:09 PM
DEAR MOM: Maybe he's a damned good fark, why not go find out?
 
2013-02-13 08:20:45 PM
They're all adults, Mom needs to butt the fark out.
 
2013-02-13 08:27:33 PM
I am told most sisters play on the bed from time to time if their ages are close; "twincest" among twins is very common also.

But the functional rule here is, once a cheat, always a cheat.  If she cheats on him with you, she will cheat on you with someone else.

\\\ Been there, done that.

\\\ had that done to me too.
 
2013-02-13 08:36:23 PM

Publikwerks: Now imagine their fat.


Even though you misspelled "they're", you win the farking thread, that was great!
 
2013-02-13 08:40:24 PM
(comes back and reads thread)


i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-13 08:42:20 PM
Hubby & I have participated in swinging but when a guy has found out that I have a sister & has started asking me creepy questions or sexual innuendos about me & my sister, that's an automatic "Ohhhhkkkey you're too sick for me" thought.
 
2013-02-13 08:57:51 PM
3 thoughts:

1. This seems perilously close to a 4chan wincest thread. Fark, you're better than that.
2. Thank GOD the wife's sister is ugly and not my type at ALL.
3. I once dated a girl with a HOT sister who was two years younger. They said enough things while drunk I think I probably could have swung things that way if I had wanted. Glad I didn't though, in retrospect.
 
2013-02-13 10:02:23 PM

Telos: Lucidz:

What a load of manure and an excuse for bad behavior   As civilization expands, the needs and rules of the old ways diminish.

OK, but isn't monogamy a pretty old rule then?


Besides which, with overpopulation, increased diversity among races, etc, there is no need for a biological multi-partner sexual drive.

There is no need for a LOT of the things that drive our behavior today, what's your point?  You still get to enjoy eating a giant steak even though there's no need for that.  Why?  Because it doesn't hurt anyone else if you enjoy a giant steak.

My assumption is that every time you have a "base instinct" to stone a man to death for being a douchenozzle does not cause you to do so, as society, ya know, frowns on it...

So the only reason not to do something is if society frowns on it?  That's not a very strong moral code.  Some societies would celebrate stoning a man to death for any number of reasons.  In fact, I would argue that the only reason society has that much power in our decision making is... wait for it... because biologically we are pack animals!

So you have to different biological urges here:

Urge to have sex with lots of different people
Urge to remain a member of your social group

Now I ask, throughout history which biological urge has caused more harm to people?  Probably _not_ the urge to fark everything in site.


So take your stupid weak ass argument and go justify it somewhere else.  You want to be a slut, do so.  Don't pretend something deep in your genetic code is driving you to spread your man-seed to the interior of inexpensive truck stop condoms.

Don't pretend something deep in your genetic code isn't driving you to fit into the crowd.


I am not saying you "can't be polyamorous".  I don't care what someone does.  I'm saying, don't try to justify something with shaky biology.

Your analogy of eating steak is a poor one.  A more accurate analogy would be eating a whole pie.  There are no laws against eating a whole pie.  There are no laws against eating a whole pie every day.  Will you get fat?  Most likely.  Might you stay thin?  Sure, but that would be very lucky.  Its probably the same odds as a poly-amorous couple surviving any long term relationship.

That said, don't eat a whole pie and then justify it by saying biologically, our bodies are made to consume as much as possible to make up for the lean times.  If you sit down and eat a whole pie, you are a glutton.  Plain and simple.  Eat all the pies you want, just own what you are is all I'm saying.
 
2013-02-14 12:05:16 AM

zerkalo: Double the Pussy, Double the Whipped. Awesome


Clearly you don't like women.  Stay away from them and do everybody a favor.
 
2013-02-14 12:18:47 AM

olddinosaur: I am told most sisters play on the bed from time to time if their ages are close; "twincest" among twins is very common also.


Dude. Identical twins screwing around isn't incest. It's masturbation.

Honestly, the only thing wrong with incest is the power differential. If I had a twin sister, I'd bone her. If I had an older sister, I might. Probably not, but I might. A younger sister would be right the f*ck out, though. It would be dirty and wrong. Consent is the real issue here. Screw who you want to, just don't hurt anyone.

OK, there's the genetics issue if you reproduce. I understand it's not as bad as we're led to believe if it's a once in a few generations thing, but there's still a risk.
 
2013-02-14 12:49:20 AM
At least the dude doesn't have to deal with 2 mother in laws
 
2013-02-14 01:36:07 AM

Zasteva: cgraves67: While I can believe that this can happen and does happen, such diversion from the norm indicates that the persons involved are themselves socially abnormal. They probably would leave a trail of questionable decisions and brutally stupid mistakes. The story reeks of broken marriages all over the place, which may be the source of the dysfunctionality, although I wouldn't settle on that without more history.

Zasteva:Perhaps there are simply more people than you know who don't feel that possession is a necessary or positive part of a romantic relationship.

Galloping Galoshes: Perhaps cgraves67 has a better handle on what drives people than you.  Romance is a modern concept.  Procreation and ensuring the success of offspring are instinctive.  I'd bet on the more ingrained behavior.

No, I agree with his first sentence. This is a diversion from the norm. My problem is with him defining that a dysfunctional, which in my experience simply isn't true.

Dysfunction happens primarily when people aren't true to their own natures. Most people aren't able to override their jealousy and fear of losing someone. But some people are. That's a sign of civilized (or enlightened if you prefer) behavior, overcoming one's fear with reason and compassion.

For those who aren't able to overcome jealousy and fear, a monogamous relationship might work better. But only if the male can override his biological drive to procreate with multiple partners ...


and only if the woman can override her biological drive to procreate with the best available genes when she's ovulating

just saying

that's a lot of overcoming

humm...overcoming
 
2013-02-14 11:24:20 AM
Lucidz: I am not saying you "can't be polyamorous".  I don't care what someone does.  I'm saying, don't try to justify something with shaky biology.

It's not exactly shaky biology... and really, you can include a lot of other "soft" sciences with evidence for polyamory.  Anthropology and psychology for instance.  Hell, one of the first things couples therapists recommend for couples bored with their sex life is to roleplay as other people.  Why pretend to be other people if there isn't a strong urge to have variety?

Your analogy of eating steak is a poor one.  A more accurate analogy would be eating a whole pie.  There are no laws against eating a whole pie.  There are no laws against eating a whole pie every day.  Will you get fat?  Most likely.  Might you stay thin?  Sure, but that would be very lucky.  Its probably the same odds as a poly-amorous couple surviving any long term relationship.

I guess pie is better, although I was thinking of one of those giant "manage to eat the whole thing and it's free" steaks.  But I like pie, so fine... it doesn't actually change anything.

But you know what?  You can pick a sensible path and enjoy steak, pie, extramarital sex, alcohol or just about anything that isn't instantly debillitating.  It depends on doing it in an intelligent way and on moderation.

Pie?  Eat a slice of pie each day, or only eat pie on the days you have really intense workouts to make up for it.
Extramarital sex?  Make sure everything is up front, above-board and you treat everyone with respect and make time for the people you care about.

There's a difference between enjoying pie and being a glutton.
There's a difference between banging everything that breathes and loving more than one person.

But at the core, both are motivated by basic biology.

That said, don't eat a whole pie and then justify it by saying biologically, our bodies are made to consume as much as possible to make up for the lean times.  If you sit down and eat a whole pie, you are a glutton.  Plain and simple.  Eat all the pies you want, just own what you are is all I'm saying.

Well, our bodies are inclined to do exactly that as part of our survival strategy.  We've learned that in many ways we are better off not doing so, mostly because there is so much food available that it's harmful.  That doesn't mean biology isn't driving the desire to order desert after eating a huge dinner at a nice restaurant.  It just means we can be smart enough to set limits and moderate our biological urges.

Biology drives our behavior to a very large extent.  Our rationality sits on top of our biology and instincts and attempts to moderate things.  But biology/instinct still underlies pretty much everything.
 
Displayed 32 of 332 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report